When Literalists Ain’t So Literal

May 11, 2008

Christians who pride themselves on being “biblical literalists,” taking the bible for what it says at face value, seem to ignore or give little credence to the very literal translation errors that have crept into English/Western versions of the bible that differ from the earliest Greek manuscripts. Many of these mistranslations conveniently pertain to gender language, in effect building the case for women to be restricted in ministry.
At least with hardcore-complementarians, the reasoning remains the same throughout their biblical interpretation process: the bible, as we know it in English, had divine direction and therefore, can be read at face value without worry.
But moderate-complementarians run into a bit of a problem. By moderate-complementarians, I mean Christians who believe only men should lead the church, teach the assembly, and lead in their homes, BUT believe women may participate in the services, as long as they are not perceived has “having authority.” So, a woman may get up and read a scripture, but she may not teach on it. A woman may get up and sing a song, possibly even lead a song. Women may pray aloud in the presence of men and even share testimonies. While I appreciate this more “liberal” approach, the issue of consistent biblical interpretation becomes problematic. For instance, a purely “literal reading” of 1 Corinthians 14:34:35 does not allow any of the aforementioned lenience.

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”–Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

There are really only two verses in the bible that would appear to outright bar women from public ministry and holding positions of “authority,” such as church leaders, church planters, pastors, preachers, evangelists, elders, and deacons: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (if read literally in English, this verse would silence women altogether: no speaking, no vocal praying, no singing…. ) and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Sometimes Ephesians 5 is thrown in for good measure. But even if one takes the view that the husband has all the authority over the wife in the marriage relationship, this hardly places all women under the authority of all men in the church! Nonetheless, it is these verses upon which the complementarian position hangs and the verses through which they interpret the rest of the bible: the creation account, Jesus’ ministry, Deborah not being God’s best, etc. etc. ( I am speaking here of complementarian scholars, I do not presume to know how each individual complementarian approaches the bible…)
Now, across-the-board complementarians have no problem with reading the above mentioned verses literally, at face value, with no qualification, or contextualization, for that matter. They certainly have no qualms about prohibiting women from teaching/preaching/evangelizing/leading, and women’s overall public silence is just an added bonus.
But for the moderate-complementarian, this just doesn’t seem right. So, most moderate complementarians have opted for a little more “in-depth” interpretation when it comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. They argue that this verse does not completely silence women in public church meetings or other mixed gatherings, was never really meant to be applied universally, or was never really meant to silence all women at all times.
Since the text ITSELF does not provide any of these convenient “qualifiers” or hints at a “temporary” instruction, moderate-complementarians refer back to the original language, appeal to the larger context of the verse, and what was happening culturally and historically at the time. Once it becomes clear, based on THOSE factors (not the text itself mind you), that Paul never intended to completely silence women, they feel justified in allowing women to vocally participate in public church meetings, as long as women are not leading or teaching men. Phew! right?
But the methods they use to come to this very logical conclusion about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are THE EXACT same methods they criticize and denounce egalitarians for using when applied to 1 Timothy 2:11-12 or Ephesians 5! They say things like: “You’re reading things into the bible,” “You’re over thinking it,” ” You’re using outside sources to determine meaning,” “You’re not just taking the text for WHAT IT PLAINLY SAYS,” “History and culture are irrelevant and unreliable,” “If the Bible is inspired, then that inspiration should have carried over with each translation”.  I can accept all of these arguments from hardcore, across-the-board complementarians, because at least they are consistent in their reading of the scriptures: all “command” passages are all literal, all-time binding, and can be taken at face value without qualification. But moderates who adhere to a “deeper” reading of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, while fancying themselves “biblical literalists,” is a bit of a head scratcher. What’s the old saying? Oh yes: Moderate-complementarians who live by glass hermeneutics should not throw stones. OK, now I’m just being snarky.
So, I would like to remind my moderate-complementarianish friends that if they believe 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 means anything other than completely silencing women in church gatherings, they have arrived at this interpretation through similar methods that egalitarians employ to arrive at alternate interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and Ephesians 5.
Now, on to business. :)
Before delving into whether or not it is allowable for a woman to teach/preach/lead in the presence of men, we must establish whether or not a woman is biblically permitted even to speak at all during church gatherings. So, the next three posts will be devoted to exploring 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the verses around it.
There are MANY different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and biblical scholars rank this verse within the top three hardest passages in scripture to interpret. Not because the meaning is unfavorable, but because nearly two-thirds of the surviving Greek manuscripts place these verses in entirely different places! Also, the language, syntax, and style seem to be uncharacteristic, inconsistent, and contradictory with Paul’s other writings. The next three posts will present the following interpretations of this difficult passage:
1. The Cultural/Historical Reading
2. The Original Language Reading
3. The Quotation Theory
I personally find the third interpretation to be the most plausible. But we’ll see what you guys think. I’m breaking this up into three posts so I can thoroughly explain each position and avoid overlapping confusion between them. Letters of Paul, here we go!
Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
3 Comments »

why the “christian” qualifier?

April 17, 2008

In another online conversation I had recently, the question came up of why we need “christian” feminism, why can’t we just be “feminism”?

This was part of my reply and I wanted to post this also to provide a forum for discussion of this. Feel free to add to my explanation or challenge me on it or completely disagree :)

I would say that “christian feminism” is a label for an approach to feminism within the christian sphere, I’m not sure I would say that “christian feminist” as a label for a person is really used. We all call ourselves feminists…and we happen to be christians.

christian feminism as a label for a conversation is a way for christians to talk about a kind of feminism that is very aware and respectful of Scripture, holding the Bible in high authority and a valid and adequate guide toward a feminist response to issues of gender and sexuality in culture. So yes, this is different from feminism in other spheres but not exclusive in any way.

Blogged with the Flock Browser
Posted by Mak
Filed in christian feminism, feminism
3 Comments »

Jesus And Women

April 13, 2008

Most Christians admit that Jesus welcomed both men and women as his disciples. However, many do not realize what a radical move this was in Jesus’ day. Disciples are not mere students, who just acquire knowledge for the sake of private learning, but are more like apprentices, in that disciples are expected to learn “the skills” of the teacher/rabbi and then when the time comes, they are to go and do the same. To have women disciples was a purposefully revolutionary and liberating signal, especially since during this time, women were not considered worthy enough to learn anything of importance, let alone the things of God.

Women were not to be taught anything of a spiritual nature. They were forbidden from learning the Law, could not enter certain parts of the temple, and were separated from the men during synagogue to talk amongst themselves. They were not suppose to speak to men in public. Even husbands were looked down upon for addressing their wives in public. Jewish law forbade women to testify in court because their testimony was considered “untrustworthy.”
The popular Rabbi Eliezer, who lived in first century Palestine, wrote: “Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman…Whoever teaches his daughter [the Torah] is like one who teaches her obscenity.” Another notorious 1st century Rabbi, Jesus Ben Sirach, wrote “He who acquires a wife gets his best position.” This attitude saturated Jewish law, tradition, and custom (and unfortunately, most the church for centuries) because of the belief that Eve was to blame for the fall, thus all women were inferior, hopelessly immoral, and deceitful. The whole “equal, but different” theology did not come about until the 1970s!
Here are some other “pearls of wisdom” from other leading Jewish rabbis on the subject of women from around the time of Jesus:
“Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity…. From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (Sirach 25:19, 24;).

“Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace” (Sirach 42:14).

 

“The woman is inferior to the man in every way” (Josephus, Against Apion 2:201).
“A hundred women are no better than two men” (Talmud, Ber. 45b)
“A man is required to say the following three blessings every day: ‘Blessed are you who have not made me a heathen, who have not made me a woman, who has not made me illiterate” (bMen. 43b; Ber. 7.18).
“There is no wisdom in woman except with the spindle” (bYom. 66b).

So, it is within this hostile context that Jesus embraces women as his disciples, not just to learn, but to learn along side men and to eventually preach and teach others. DURING, the famous Sermon on The Mount, while explaining the “upside-down” kingdom of God, He tells the crowd (made up of both men and women) that whoever keeps His Commands and teaches them to others will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”–Jesus,

 

Notice Jesus does not make the distinction between men teaching anyone and everyone and women only teaching other women and children. Men and women are given the same standard, the same privilege, and the same responsibility. Jesus entrusts His words to masses, encouraging that they be kept and taught to others. Again, because of the modern world we live in, we miss the radical elements of Jesus’ loaded words. To tell a crowd of men and women (many with reputation issues) to teach anything, let alone spiritual things, is unheard of in 1 Century Judea, a taboo and despicable offense to the “religious leaders” of the day. The Law was solely entrusted to the religious leaders, who then filtered down what they wished to the people.
Jesus also gives the Great Commission to the Eleven, who are to make disciples, equipping all people and nations to do the same.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”–Jesus, Matt. 28:18-20

Again, to make “disciples” of all nations, with no distinction of male and female, implies that the new disciples will also be expected to pass the torch: teaching, preaching, baptizing, and training new disciples to do the same. All believers are called to the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).

 

Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
No Comments »

Woman At The Well: First Evangelist?

April 5, 2008

Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well is, in my opinion, one of the most remarkable, socially-unacceptable, counter-cultural instances told in scripture. As if being a woman during this period was not bad enough, to be a Samaritan woman was a double curse. Jews did not associate with Samaritans and would never share a drinking vessel with them, lest they, too, become unclean. Samaritans were considered “half-breeds” and were avoided at all costs.
Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well and asks her to give him a drink. She is stunned, informing him that she is a Samaritan woman and He is a Jew, so how could He ask her for a drink. Jesus then teaches her the lesson of living water, tells her about her five husbands, and finally reveals to her that a time is coming when people will be able to worship God in spirit and truth, only through the power of God’s spirit. (That’s quite a heavy conversation, one He had not even shared with the 12). When she proclaims that she knows there is a day when a Messiah will come, Jesus says, “I am He.” Again, this is more information than even the disciples are aware of at this point. She runs back to town and tells many of the men (plural, so probably men and women) about Jesus, confessing that He knew everything about her.
“From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, “He told me all the things that I have done” (John 4:39).
Mr. Davidson, from the Church of God, highlights some interesting facts about this famous encounter between Jesus and The Woman at the Well:
“The conversation with the woman at the well is the longest recorded discussion Jesus had with anyone—and she, a Gentile woman. Further, the lesson Jesus gave her about living water was just as profound as the lesson he gave Nicodemus—and the woman had a better response. Unlike Nicodemus, she was willing to be associated with Jesus. She told her neighbors about Jesus, and many of them believed in Jesus ‘because of the woman’s testimony.’”
The most fascinating part of this story is that while she ran back to town to tell others to come see the one who could be the long-awaited Messiah, Jesus is praising her work through a parable to his returning dumbfounded-disciples, who are marveling at the fact that Jesus would be talking to a Samaritan woman, apparently alone! Scandalous. This is surely not only a social violation, but a theological violation. Yet, the disciples were too chicken to ask aloud: “why would He be talking to this woman….”
So, Jesus schools them about the unlikely partnerships and co-working in The Great Upside Down Kingdom of God….

“Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. Already he [original translation: "one"] who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.” So in this case the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ “I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.”

Jesus, The Ultimate Seed Sower, plants His Word into the woman’s heart, who in turn plants His Word in the hearts of others. This must have been a trying and puzzling lesson for the disciples, who previously wouldn’t even have made eye contact with a Samaritan, let alone work along side them, partnering up in the cause of God, to invite “half-breeds” to become followers of Jesus.

Isn’t the story of the woman at the well a reflection of what evangelism is really about? Churches that forbid or discourage women from preaching the gospel in the presence of men miss the entire point and essence of true evangelism. Preaching the Good News of Jesus should not be a means to gain or exercise authority/control over people. To portray it as such (since that IS the reason sited to bar women from becoming public evangelists), perverts the spirit in which evangelism should be acted out. Evangelism is about pointing people to JESUS. It’s about teaching people what the gospel is, what Jesus said and did, and to invite others to began their own faith journey. How sectors of the church can restrict women from preaching the good news of the gospel in the presence of men is just tragic to me. The Samaritan woman’s sense of urgency, as she runs back to town to tell anyone who will listen about the Messiah, says it all. Where’s that urgency today? Are we too busy squabbling over which gender can say and do what in the presence of which people and in which forums? Titles and positions of preacher, teacher, pastor, evangelist and so forth, should not be viewed as ways to get authority, but as an avenue to live out the authority and calling of the gospel for those gifted and equipped in each area.
Why do we split such flimsy hairs when it comes to women in ministry: woman can preach the gospel, but they cannot BE a preacher. Women can DO evangelism. but cannot BE an evangelist. Women can SHARE the gospel, but cannot TEACH the gospel.
Don’t we want to reach as many people as we can? Why do we make teaching the Gospel a matter of “authority over others” and “proper gender roles”? (Again, I am speaking to the more rigid branches of complementarianism).
The Woman at the Well did not hold an “official” position (so don’t misunderstand my intent), but as one of the first people EVER for Jesus to choose to reveal Himself as the Messiah and as the first person to spread the news of Jesus beyond the Jewish people, she sets an important example of the true heart of ministry.
I came across this three-minute creative, contemporary, beat-poet-ish video, portraying this story from the Samaritan woman’s perspective. I found it compelling: The Woman at The Well.
Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
1 Comment »

At Least It’s Not A Woman Preaching, Right?

March 30, 2008

“And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.”– 1 Kings 16:11

Nothing like a good old fashion sermon on men “who pisseth against the wall.” This dude can preach because he is a man, and by his own definition, to be a real man means pissing against the wall. So, that’s the difference between men and women! No wonder we can’t teach scripture, it’s all so clear now! :)

Did you guys know that urinals were divinely sanctioned? Who woulda thunk?

Really, could a woman do much worse than that dude?

Ok, this video is posted for strictly humorous purposes, and because I haven’t had a lot of time to work on more “meaty” posts. But I just want to make it clear that I DO NOT believe this bizarro-idea of “man-ness” is the crux of the complementarian argument or represents most complementarians in the least. In fact, I am hoping that this winner is the only one who thinks likes that. :)

But his mindset begs the question: Are our beliefs on “what makes a man a real man” distorted? Are our ideas of ideal masculinity shaped by scripture or by something like old western flicks, where men are gun-slinging, macho cowboys who pee in the wind and never shed a tear? Since the start of this series, the idea of gender roles and how they relate to or define our masculinity/femininity has consistently come up. So, I would like to know:

Which roles do you consider to be solely feminine and and solely masculine?

Which qualities do you consider to be solely female and solely male?

Or do you believe that most qualities are overlapping, but the ratio present within each sex should be distinct?

The reason I ask, is because I could not really pinpoint for myself inherent qualities (outside of the biological realm) that are solely male/female. I am sincerely curious of what the consensus is out there on this topic.

Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
5 Comments »

Daughters Who Claim Their Inheritance

March 28, 2008

There are three short, obscure stories within the Old Testament that give me hope for women being empowered to reclaim their full spiritual inheritance in The Kingdom of God. So certain people don’t have an aneurysm, I am not claiming that this hope is the definitive meaning of these scriptures or that they necessarily “prove” anything. They are just tiny glimmers of comfort that God has used in my own journey because I personally struggle with much of the old testament.

Some of these instances don’t seem like a big deal to those of us who live in our modern part of the world, where women possess far more rights and “worth,” than they ever had in ancient Israel. These stories made it into scripture and I believe they exist for a reason: to foreshadow a time when women, too, would be redeemed from the curse and be able to reclaim an equal inheritance with their brothers in their Father’s kingdom.
Zelophehad’s five daughters; Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirza; who defied Israel’s longstanding male-dominated tradition and approached Moses to grant them the full portion of their father’s inheritance. Their father had no son and since women were considered unworthy to own anything, the inheritance would be distributed to far-off relatives while his daughters were left destitute. This was an ugly reality for families with no male heir. So, they waltzed up to Moses and said, “Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.” (Numbers 27:4).
This is a remarkable and revolutionary act for women in ancient Israel to risk. They are not only asking for the inheritance that a son would get, but are questioning the logic of Israel’s law! Talk about assertive eh? Laws in theocratic Israel were different from the law of secular countries, they were equated with God’s truth. So this is an incredibly ballsy move! Moses actually took these bold women seriously and inquired of the Lord about what to do.
God gives an amazing reply:
“So Moses brought their case before the LORD and the LORD said to him, ‘What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and turn their father’s inheritance over to them. Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. ‘”

J. Lee Grady expounds on this passage:

“In that moment, God contradicted centuries of prejudice and wrong-headed tradition. He made it clear that in His kingdom, women are not afterthoughts or domestic appendages…When God looks at redeemed mankind through the blood of Jesus Christ, He does not limit women from full participation in His kingdom.”

So, God gives Zelophehad’s daughters their inheritance, demonstrating His tender concerns for their well being and their due as human beings. God commands that Israel’s legal code be changed as a result of Zelophehad’s daughters, legislating that daughters were to receive the full inheritance, if the father had no sons. Not exactly what we would consider today to be full equality, but for a time when women weren’t considered worthy to own anything, this was a miraculously liberating development. Their courage benefited many other women, who would have been “disowned” and left with nothing. If Moses is a picture of Christ, then him bringing these women’s case before the Lord becomes all the more meaningful.

In Joshua 15:18-19, we meet Achsah, the daughter of Caleb. When Caleb acquires a lush portion of land in Judah, his daughter asks him for part of land. Again, in a time when women were traditionally not permitted to own anything, let alone property, this is shockingly bold. Caleb gives her the land of Negev. Achsah then asks for more: “Give me a blessing since you have given me the land of Negev, give me also springs of water.” So Caleb gives her the “upper and lower springs.” His daughter receives a triple portion, above and beyond what she asks for. She receives her own land, and two sets of springs. Having access to fresh water was considered a great luxury in ancient times. The story of Caleb and Achsah paints a beautiful picture of a father’s love for his daughter, a love that empowers her.

And my favorite instance is found in Job 42: 12-15.

The LORD blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

Job, considered to be one of the most righteous men of all time, thought it best to bestow his inheritance upon both his sons and daughters, which was virtually unheard of in ancient times. If Job is a picture of Christ, the fact that he chose to empower all of his children with the same opportunities and resources, with a full inheritance, is significant, at least to me.
All these stories reveal the subtle theme of a father’s love for his children and how that love takes shape. Jesus came to redeem us, to restore humanity to this beautiful parent/child relationship, to live out a full inheritance in His Kingdom. Let’s empower all of God’s children to rise up and take it, and let the Spirit determine how this inheritance takes shape, not our reproductive organs.
On To The New Testament…
Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
Tagged:
1 Comment »

Miriam: The First Worship Leader

March 27, 2008

I’m pretty sure that most moderate-complementarian churches allow women to hold the position of head worship leader, but since enough complementarian churches do not, and Miriam is the first woman in scripture to be given the title prophetess, her story is worth telling.

Miriam, sister of Aaron and Moses, is called a prophetess (Exodus 15:20) and leader (Micah 6:4).

God declares through Micah that He sent “Moses to lead you [Israel], and also Aaron and Miriam.”

Miriam also leads the Israelites in their first service of worship as a free people. At first glance, the text would appear to indicate that Miriam is only leading other women, but that is because of our sometimes limited English language.

Shawna R.B. Atteberry of The Voice: Biblical and Theological Resources For Growing Christians provides a textual analysis based on the original language:

In verse 20, Miriam apparently leads the women in dancing and celebrating Yahweh’s victory. However, the imperative “sing” [Heb: shiru] is a masculine plural form (not feminine). Since Hebrew uses masculine forms for mixed gender groups, this implies that she led all the people in celebrating their victory and worshipping Yahweh, and not just the women.

Just another example of a woman of God leading both men and women.

Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
Tagged:
1 Comment »

Huldah: The Lost Prophetess

March 25, 2008

How many of you have honestly heard of Huldah?

Even though her story is intertwined with Josiah, a notorious and good king of Israel, she is rarely mentioned.
Paganism swept over Israel and reigned supreme for over fifty years. When Josiah became King, he began a long journey of undoing the wickedness done by previous kings. His “clergy” stumbled upon the Book of the Law, hidden in the temple (2 Chronicles tells us this book was from the law of Moses, many believe it to be a lost segment of Dueteronomy). The people had forgotten God’s Law and turned their hearts to other gods. The two kings prior to Josiah were perhaps the most wicked in all of Israel’s history, leading their nation into idolatry, witchcraft, human sacrifice, temple prostitution, and other heinous practices. When the words in the book were read out loud, Josiah tores his clothes and repented. Josiah then sent the High Priest Hilkiah to bring the book of the law to one of God’s faithful:
“Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found” (2 Kings 22:13, emphasis added).

So Hilkiah brings the book to Huldah, a prophetess and wife of Shallum (another married women who holds a position of spiritual authority), who remained faithful in one of Israel’s darkest moments in history. She interpreted the words in the book and delivered a prophetic message to Hilkiah, the high priest, for King Josiah. So, they took scripture to a woman to find out what it meant….interesting. I’ll refrain from pointing out the obvious implications of this…Oh, who am I kidding? She’s teaching them scripture! Men, in leadership no less, are asking a woman to tell them what the words of the book mean and what they need to do next! Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. :)

Huldah then speaks for God:
“Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the LORD, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people, that they would become accursed and laid waste, and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you,’ declares the LORD.”–2 Kings 22:18-19
Read the entire story here: 2 Kings 22 or 2 Chronicles 34
So we have a king, a high priest, and other men holding a position of spiritual authority seeking spiritual direction from a woman. They even receive a blessing from the Lord because they humbled themselves and listened to what God has spoken through her.
She faithfully delivered the words God gave to her. Luckily, these men were not deluded by pride and could humbly receive the commands of God via woman.J. Lee Grady makes this correlation:
“It is odd that a group of spiritual leaders operating under the Old Covenant in Israel looked to an anointed woman of God for advice when some Christian leaders today–in the New Covenant age–would consider Huldah ‘out of order’ for assuming a place of influence in the church.”
Yet again, we have a woman, Huldah, who throws a wrench in rigid complementarians’ “clean-cut” theology.
Posted by beautiaful
Filed in christian feminism
3 Comments »

Deborah: A Fundamentalist’s Worst Nightmare!

March 20, 2008

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.”–Judges 4:4-5

Before I start posting on specific bible verses that seem to bar women from serving in all levels of ministry, I want to look at some unique women in the Bible, who break apart our nice, neat, gender-separated boxes.

The story of Deborah, a biblical heroine, has devolved into a passing mention in many evangelical circles, and in more fundamental circles, she’s been deemed “a reproach,” only used by God to shame men because all the men of Israel apparently refused God’s call to fulfill His work. That’s right, Deborah must be the bottom of the barrel, God’s last choice, simply because she lacked a penis. But this viewpoint does not hold up under honest evaluation of biblical texts. Hence, the reason why Deborah’s story is rarely taught in depth within these circles.

Some Facts about Deborah

  • She most likely lived between 1209 and 1169 B.C.
  • She was a judge, prophetess, and leader called by God, who gave Israel both civil and spiritual direction. Judges 4 and 5 says Deborah “sends,” “summons”, and “COMMANDS” the people (men and women), telling them God’s will and direction.
  • She lead Israel, possibly for forty years.
  • She settled disputes among her people.
  • She was respected by all the people.
  • The land had peace for forty years due to her ministry (Judges 4 and 5).
  • She governed Israel by prophetic oracles.
  • Deborah led 10,000 troops into battle against the oppressive Canaanites.
  • She was the instrument God used to deliver Israel from her enemies and return the nation back to God.
  • Deborah called upon kings and princes to give thanks to God for what He had done.

Another little overlooked fact about Deborah is that she was married. This is a significant detail, because married women, above all other women, have the most restrictions placed upon them. Whether we believe a married woman’s purpose is to only aid her husband’s ambitions or that they must solely be a housewife, Deborah defies all our expectations of what a married woman (possibly with children) should be.

So, why does Deborah hold this position of authority and not her husband? God called her and not him, that’s why. Fancy that! The fact that Deborah has a vagina instead of a penis does not preclude her from being God’s chosen spokesperson: a brave, faithful, civil AND spiritual leader of Israel and servant of the Most High. We do not know how old Deborah is at this time or whether or not she had any children. My guess would be that she did in fact have children, because barren women were looked upon as “cursed.” These men humbled their male pride long enough to listen to the wisdom of God via woman, but I’m pretty sure doing that for a barren woman might be too much to ask. :)

The fact that Deborah was married, with no “ruling” husband in sight, affirms the fact that Genesis 3:16, where God says a man will rule over his wife, is descriptive and NOT prescriptive (See previous post: Adam and Eve: The First Egalitarians?) If man ruling over his wife had been God’s will (as oppose to the inevitable consequence of sin), even after the fall, then Deborah’s position would not be in line with God’s “command.”

And yet here we have a married woman stepping out into public service, exercising national and spiritual authority, leading battles, commanding, summoning, sending, and instructing men and women on a myriad of earthly and spiritual matters. She does not even consult her husband before leading an entire nation into battle: a battle that was viewed as a suicide mission, since Israel’s army was vastly outnumbered.

Now Barak, the military general who refused to go to battle without Deborah by his side, gets a lot of flack for needing a woman to accompany him in battle. But his downfall was not that he depended on a woman to be at his side, but that he lacked faith in God’s message of victory to go it alone. Had Samuel or Joshua been in Deborah’s place and Barak demanded they go with him, his fate would have been the same: Sisera (their enemy) would have still been delivered over to Jael, a gentile woman. Barak’s dilemma was a faith issue, not a gender issue. However, we should give Barak some credit for recognizing Deborah’s anointing and wanting her near by.

Deborah, this remarkable prophetess and Judge of Israel, defies nearly every restriction placed upon the “ideal” woman of faith. She does not fit neatly into the quiet-submissive-barefoot-and-pregnant-housewife-that-would-never-dare-exercise-authority box. She’s assertive, strong, and forthright. She holds the position of judge, prophet, and military commander (talk about a career gal, eh?). Her path is determined by God, not by the status quo or social constructs. She was the God-appointed leader of Israel, to whom MEN, powerful men, came to receive spiritual direction, authoritative earthly decisions, and orders from God. All Deborah prophesied came to pass. Deborah’s faith and leadership not only delivered Israel from the oppression of the Canaanites, but restored Israel SPIRITUALLY to God.

Isn’t it ironic how Deborah spoke FOR God to men and women with authority and her story is considered to be a part of God’s Word, the Bible, yet a woman today (in most evangelical church settings) could not stand behind a pulpit and teach the body about it?

When will we tear down the barriers that keep all of God’s children from going deeper with God and each other? When will we submit ourselves to God and one another, not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of human and spiritual equality, all being made uniquely in the image of God with gifts to use? When will we put our faith in the Holy Spirit’s taboo and surprising guidance (Deborah’s story is nothing if not taboo), instead of trying to enforce blanket admonishments on people of faith?

Posted by beautiaful
Filed in emerging church
Tagged:
7 Comments »

Eve: The Helpmeet

March 18, 2008

“Until Eve arrived, this was a man’s world.” – Richard Armour

Eve has been a controversial figure throughout history. Theologians have argued for centuries over why God created her, what purpose she was to serve, if she was innately inferior, and as of late, if she possesses a what I like to call, “conditional equality,” meaning Eve (and therefore all womankind) is equal in worth, but limited in ministry, leadership, and authority.

The basis for “conditional equality” (when referring to Adam and Eve) is the belief that the purpose of Eve’s creation was solely for Adam’s benefit–solely to be of service to him because God declares Eve will be a help to Adam or his “help meet.”
Since the bible calls Eve a “help meet,” it has been assumed that she was created as a subservient being to man and for the sole purpose of aiding his will, ambitions, and desires. In Genesis, Eve is called ezer, a Hebrew word, and while some versions translate this word as “help meet” or “helper,” other versions translate ezer as “partner” or “companion” because in English, “helper” usually connotates subservience or a subordinate role. However, the Hebrew word ezer carries no such connotation. Ezer implies deep intimacy and partnership. Ezer is formed from two root words, one meaning “strength” and the other “power.” Ironically, the same word ezer is used to describe God 17 times in the Old Testament including: Duet. 33:7, 26, 29; Psalm 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11 and 146:5. In the New Testament, the same word is used to describe the Holy Spirit (John 14-16). We would never assume that because God is called our “helper” that He is “under us,” subjugated to us, exists solely for us or that “helper” is His only role. The same is to be true of Eve.
J. Lee Grady, an ordained minister, author, and leader of The Mordecai Project, articulated this concept well:“The fact that Eve was presented to Adam to help him does make her inferior. One the contrary, God had already said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone,” acknowledging that Adam was in an inferior condition without a mate. In the ideal marriage, a wife is a help to her husband and he is a help to her in return. Their need for each other and their deep sense of mutual dependence are what make marriage so satisfying…Marriage is not about who is in control or who serves whom. It is about becoming one.”
In my last post: Adam and Eve: The First Egalitarians? I demonstrated how Adam and Eve were called by God to rule and subdue the earth together without a gender hierarchy. Adam’s first words upon seeing Eve further confirm, not only her equal worth, but her equal capability to live out their shared-calling, to commune with God and to fill, subdue, and rule the earth.
“The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him…” But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”--. Genesis 2:18-24

Adam immediately recognizes his perfect match, whose likeness (different than sameness) allows him to experience intimacy on all levels. She, too, is made in the image of God, fully capable of carrying out the calling God gives to both of them in Genesis 1:26-28. Why would Adam rejoice about being untied as one flesh (which has massive implications) with someone who existed solely to aid him and was less qualified spiritually, mentally, and physically? Doesn’t it make more sense to be united with someone with whom you share mutual dependence, intimacy, and capability; as partners who mutually enhance each other’s individuality, calling, and full potential? Both “lead” and both “help.” These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

For many, Eve’s identity is solely wrapped up in her relationship to Adam. And while she was indeed created to complement Adam, Adam also complements her. More importantly, both Adam and Eve were ultimately created to commune with God. This is a crucial biblical truth because it ties Adam’s and Eve’s identities to their Creator, independent of each other. This does not negate Eve’s calling to Adam, but broadens her calling to embrace and live out the highest of all commandments, the commandments upon which Jesus declared, “hang all of the Law and Prophets.” Adam and Eve were created and called to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and love each other as they loved themselves. Think of Adam’s words: “Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, …” He would love Eve as his own body or self, which has a myriad of implications that will be discussed in another post.
The First Couple mirrored Jesus’ greatest commandments, which all believers find their complete identity and purpose in. This is not to say that Adam and Eve didn’t need each other. On the contrary, this truth enhances their need for each other. Their unique connections and communions with God are what makes them beneficial to each other and allows them to impart godly wisdom and insight to each other. This enables them to become one mentally, physically, and spiritually. It is precisely this equally shared-capacity that makes men and women perfectly complementary to each other.
For further analysis on this topic, Allison Young from Christians For Biblical Equality put together this informative article, briefly walking through the creation story and it’s implications.
Next Post: Deborah: A Fundamentalist’s Worst Nightmare
Posted by beautiaful
Filed in emerging church
Tagged:
3 Comments »
« Previous Entries