Archive for the 'Women in Christianity' Category

Toothless Lizards Full of Madness

Honzo April 16th, 2008

We, as Christians, are among the world’s best at sweeping, dismissive judgments. All one needs to do is subscribe to the Worldview Weekend newsletter to see that. This is not a new trend, however, as evidenced by the following quote by Epiphanius:

Passing this judgment [on them is like passing judgment] on a toothless lizard full of madness, I will go on to the next things, beloved, calling upon God to help our inadequacy and to enable us to fulfill our promise [i.e. to write this book] (Medicine Box, 49)

As dismissive judgments go, likening your opponent to a “toothless lizard full of madness” is pretty sweet. In this case the lizards in need of dentures were the Quintillians and they were dismissed because of their allowance of women as clergy and prophetesses.

I keep wondering how Luke 6:37 fits into all of this, if not in the 4th century, then in the current postmodern context in which we find ourselves.

Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven.

Here’s the rub: how can I actually not judge and still maintain myself?

I consider myself to be a collection of definitions.  I am 6′1” tall.  I like basketball; I hate baseball.  I follow Christ.  I determine that which I am. Well, the things that I can choose - I can’t choose to be a white male, for instance.  I determine this by means of judgment.  I judge for myself that baseball is three minutes of action crammed into three hours.  I determine that math is a good way to use numbers.  I determine that there is nothing sweeter than a drop step or a juke+spin+hook-shot in basketball.  How am I not to judge, which is a command from the One that I follow when judgments necessarily make up an individual?  In other places in the Bible, we are commanded to test the spirits, to determine what is right.  How do we reconcile this?

As best as I can understand it, there is a distinguishment between moral and factual judgments.  We are to make so-called factual judgments about matters and hold them over and above the judgments of others.  On the other hand, we are to refrain from making moral judgments about people and their positions.

While this seems almost self-explanatory, I know I often need reminding of this.  Just look through the archives of masstheology.com, hundiejo.com, or brendoman.com as evidence of this.

What do you do with Luke 6:37?

New Poll: Women in the early Church.

Honzo April 9th, 2008

Given the content of some of our posts here, I was wondering what the perception of people is concerning the role of women in the early church.

n

In your estimation, women in the early Church (30-150CE) were...
View Results

Women in Leadership in the Church

Honzo April 2nd, 2008

As I am reading chapter 6 of In Memory of Her, Fiorenza is examining the titles and positions of women in the ministry of Paul.  I am double checking her claims and translations via BibleWorks in the ESV, NLT, NRSV, Young’s Literal, and both the BGT and BYZ Greek texts.  While I don’t have time to get into specifics1 , the case is getting thiner and thiner for a lack of women in positions of power and leadership in the early Church that were endorsed by Paul.

As a side note, there is an inverse relationship between my hatred for Wisdom Ways and my love for In Memory of Her, both by Fiorenza.

  1. I have another 75 pages and another article to go through and then come up with a presentation/discussion for class tommorow []

Relinquishment of Dominance as a Requirement for Citizenship in the Kingdom of God

Honzo April 2nd, 2008

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme - the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

A “Biblical Notion of Husband and Wife”

Honzo March 18th, 2008

A comment by Hank on The Way I need Jesus got me thinking: is there such a thing as a “biblical notion of husband and wife?” What notion are we talking about? Pre-Israel marriage? We gonna pattern it after the marriages in Genesis? Ancient Israel? 2nd Kings? Isn’t that what got us good US citizens up in arms against the Mormons a hundred or so years ago (poly-what?)? Are we gonna talk about the Jewish ideas of what marriage is in the time of Jesus? Are we gonna talk about marriage as it was practiced by the Romans (i.e. baby factories = wives)? Are we going to talk about those writing in the name of Paul when they are giving advice on how to be a couple of equality under the yoke of the empire?

The more I look at actual marriages in the Bible the less I am enamored with the monolithic notion of the so-called “biblical notion of husband and wife.” We need to realize that marriages in our Holy Scriptures are described (not prescribed) in different structures with different power realationships between the parties involved.

We see in the myth of Genesis 3 the consequences of the fall in marriages - women and men will try to dominate each other. This arrangement (both women looking to dominate their husbands and husband dominating their wives) is unnatural; God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.

It gives me great pleasure to see people attempt to justify our culture’s (or rather the 1950’s) version of marriage where one party dominates the other.

With the coming of the Kingdom of God, we must work to restore the equality inherent in the “two becoming one flesh” by means of our practice and our teachings. What we need to do is rediscover the the pre-fall power relations between husband and wife and make those relations real in our lives. It is up to us to enact the Kingdom of God on Earth - now.

Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and a Reversal of Violence

tom February 28th, 2008

In one of the more misunderstood passages dealing with the life of Jesus, the Son of God encounters a gentile woman who seeks his assistance in casting a demon out of her daughter. The gospel of Mark provides her pedigree for us: “a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia.”[1] Before we get to hear Jesus’ response to her request, Mark supplies us with the three strikes against her from the average Jewish standpoint. She was A. a woman, B. a gentile woman, and C. gentile woman who hailed from the insufferable Syrophoenician region, a region filled with people who should have been destroyed in the Canaanite genocides – their very presence a continual reminder to the Jews of their failure to fully obey Yahweh. Even the most hated woman in the Hebrew Bible, Queen Jezebel, hailed from this region. But as we shall see, our narrative redeems the Canaanite people and our woman serves as a reminder that Yahweh’s mind has changed about the decedents of Queen Jezebel.

While others would have considered her unclean, Jesus has just completed teaching that uncleanness is a matter of the heart, not the body, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean?’…What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”[2]

In context, Jesus puts into practice what he preaches. Even trekking through the region of Tyre and Sidon betrayed an act of rebellion. 1st century Jewish stereotypes considered this an area of “seduction to false gods and hostility to the Jewish people.”[3] Instead of judging this woman based on her gender, ancestry, and the side of the tracks she came from, Jesus addresses her as a person, not a mere stereotype.[4] Interestingly Yahweh, who originally commanded the Canaanite genocide, is, in this text, informing us that power, dehumanization and domination are inadequate means by which to spread God’s kingdom. The superiority of the gospel to violence is a probable ethical principle one could draw from this passage.The Canaanites who were once supposed be destroyed now find a place within God’s redemptive plan. This text, then, is intended to counter the Canaanite genocides - this text, above that one, displays the character of God!

While Jesus response to this gentile woman may seem harsh, he does not respond to her with sexism or racism, for that would be a violation of the sermon he has just preached. Initially the text informs us that Jesus refuses the woman’s request. Jesus notifies the woman that, as a dog (gentile), she will have to wait for the children (Israel) to be finished feasting before she can eat. While this may sound offensive to us, the woman has no such reaction. She does not react as if Jesus has insulted her. More likely, she understands that Jesus is merely stating that the time for ministry among the gentiles has not yet arrived. Demonstrating great intelligence and wit[5], she tells Jesus that sometimes dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table as the children are eating. “Now is a good time for my daughter to be healed, even if the time of the gentiles has not arrived,” she says.

Without regard for her gender or race, Jesus grants the woman’s request. With no consideration for whether or not this woman or her daughter are deemed unclean because of their gender, Jesus heals them both. He casts the unclean spirit out of the daughter, symbolizing that the gentiles by virtue of their race, and women by virtue of their gender, should no longer be categorized as unclean. He shows this woman she is not subhuman simply because of her gender or race. Neither Jesus nor the gospel writers concerned themselves with her gender; they simply marveled at her “great faith.”[6]

——————————————————————————–

[1] Mark 7:26

[2] Mark 7:20-23 – Interestingly enough, Mark describes the evil spirit within this woman’s daughter as an unclean spirit. While many of our English translations translate the word evil, in context it seems infinitely more appropriate to translate the word as unclean.

[3] Mary Anne Getty-Sullivan, Women in the New Testament. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 87. Getty-Sullivan also notes that this area was considered profane to the ancient Jews because it represented their own failures. The area was originally given to the tribe of Asher, but they failed to completely occupy it as God had commanded. This was also the area that the most hated of all OT women was birthed: Queen Jezebel, who was the great persecutor of the prophet Elijah, and the great dominator of her puppet of a husband Ahab.

[4] Stereotypes are created by people in order to make sense of an increasingly complex world. The pluralistic world of Jesus’ day and ours is filled with stereotypes simply because people are groping for a simple way to understand their crazy pluralistic world. Unfortunately, this is never neutral. Stereotypes also dehumanize the ‘other’ and keep them perpetually in a state of being sub-human. They are a means of power maintenance.

[5] Intelligence and wit are only a small part of what this woman displays. Her determination to get what she has come to Jesus for is another quite remarkable attribute.

[6] Matt. 15:28 – Matthew adds this praise for the woman in his account of the event. Mark, the earlier gospel that Matthew used as a source for his gospel, does not record Jesus praising her for her great faith. We see, however, in Matthew’s addition, that it was important for him to correct first century assumptions about the faithlessness of women and gentiles.

A Noise of War in the Camp - Post 1 in a Series Inspired By He that Pisseth Against a Wall

tom February 26th, 2008

I became a Christian shortly before I turned 17. For some reason, in all God’s omniscience, he placed me in an Independent, Fundamentalist, King James Only, Baptist church. The next few posts will be memoirs regarding what I learned those few years as an Independent Baptist. It will concern not only my experiences and their doctrines, but also their heuristic devices – one of which is fear. I’ll not spend any time refuting the crap I’m going to write about - most of it is self-refuting anyway.

———-

Shortly after God saved me I purchased my first Christian music: Audio Adrenaline: Bloom. I didn’t know who AA was, I just knew I liked rock music and it was kind of cool to find some with Christian themes.* I also purchased, to my eternal regret, Carmen: Riot (but that’s a story for another time).

Elated at my acquisition, I told my pastor. Immediately I was reprimanded for buying such filth because Rock & Roll, of any kind, is sinful. Not being a very thoughtful teenager, and having just been introduced to this Christianity stuff, I accepted what he said. I went home and threw away all my rock CD’s: (just to name a few - Nirvana: Never Mind, Bush: 16 Stone, and Smashing Pumpkins: Melancholy and the Infinite Sadness**)

Interestingly, in an act of clandestine defiance, I didn’t throw away Bloom, but instead I went out and purchased Jesus Freak.

When I asked my pastor why all rock music was bad, he said 2 things:

1. Moses went up on the mountain to receive the law of God. When he came back down, Aaron had all the people worshiping a Golden Calf. While they were worshiping that Golden Calf, there was “a sound of war” in the camp. Now, Tom, what music sounds most like war? Rock music, of course. Anachronism, you wills see, is a continual theme for these folks.

2. The beat of Rock & Roll music is demonic. There are stories of missionaries who let their children buy Christian rock while on furlough, only to return to their post and have the natives tell them, “That’s the beat we used to use to conjure up demons.” You see, even Christian rock is demonic. To use Jr’s illustration, pray to God that if you get a flat tire, that the thudding sound doesn’t conjure a demon.

My pastor then proceeded to give me a number of CD’s by the Gaither Vocal Band, Gold City (I think that was their name), and Crimson Blood (or something like that). After listening to these CD’s, I concluded that if rock music was a tool of the Devil, certainly this crap must be the spawn of Satan. Apparently, though, while the beat of rock music conjures demons, the Country Western sound is acceptable

*Bloom was their last good CD.

** Obviously, I’ve not changed too much – I’m still spoon fed pop culture – except for freakin Nickelback, the musical equivalent of a turd floating in a punchbowl.

What never happens in Xianity

Honzo February 25th, 2008

women in science women in religion

I am sure this argument is never made in our circles, right? Like when we are interpreting Genesis 3?

Is this what it means to be a man?

Hank February 15th, 2008

My only question to the authors of this blog in light of this video: are you a man? I know I’m not after watching that video and peeing my pants!

(H/T: Irish Calvinist)

The Goal of Feminist Biblical Interpretation

Honzo January 30th, 2008

As I am wading through In Memory of Her1 I came across this quote from Fiorenza where she outlines what she considers to be the goals of good feminist scholarship. Given some of the issues that came up in another post, I thought this was appropriate.

The debate between feminist “engaged” and androcentric academic “neutral” scholarship indicates a shift in interpretative paradigms. Whereas traditional scholarship has identified humanness with maleness and understood women only as a peripheral category in the “human” interpretation of reality, the new field of women’s studies not only attempts to make “women’s” agency a key interpretative category but also seeks to transform androcentric scholarship and knowledge into truly human scholarship and knowledge, that is, inclusive of all people, men and women, upper and lower classes, aristocracy and “common people,” different cultures and races, the powerful and the weak.

Methods and implementation aside, the above is a worthy and necessary goal in biblical interpretation. Historically, scholars have viewed women as a variation of men, often as incomplete version of a man. Accordingly all scholarship and philosophical reflection is colored with this lens.

  1. and I do mean wading - right now I am trudging through the barrow-downs of her survey and critique of all previous feminist biblical scholarship []

Next »

Bad Behavior has blocked 797 access attempts in the last 7 days.