The CBE Scroll

Comment by Sue

July 18, 2010 @ 12:35 am

Thank you, this is great…. I’m just curious what you do with Psalm 31 which is often used to portray a “Godly Wife” and “Godly Womanhood” in society today. I’m not sure what to do with it myself if I’m indeed going to cling to the idea that there is no such thing as Godly womanhood or manhood in the Bible. Thanks!

Comment by Amanda

July 18, 2010 @ 9:00 am

I’ve long wondered if a lot of the confusion complementarians have about egalitarianism stems, at least in part, from a conflation of sex and gender. As egalitarians we readily acknowledge that God created the two sexes, while denying that gender is a God-ordained construct. Complementarians often see the sex and gender as inextricably bound.

Comment by Michelle

July 18, 2010 @ 9:27 am

Proverbs 31, which I’ve only begun to look at so please, add to this and/or correct as needed, is interesting.

First and most importantly, I note that the verse should be read and understood in the context of Jesus being *the* example of perfect, i.e. unblemished by sin, humanity/personhood. Jesus provides the example that ALL humans are to follow. This is something I’ve found more conservative churches seem to forget, as they are too wrapped up in sexed/gendered examples of proper behavior.

Therefore, the woman in Proverbs 31 should not be read as an example of “God’s perfect woman”, and I’d hesitate to read it as “God’s perfect wife” as well, though she’s certainly one example of a godly wife.

It’s interesting to note that the “Proverbs 31 woman” is involved in commerce and is said to speak with wisdom “…faithful instruction is on her tongue”. But that doesn’t seem to be written necessarily in the context of instructing children.

I’m sure there’s much more to say about this scripture, including what it meant to early readers, so I look forward to reading what everyone else has to say!

@Amanda 91503–Yes! Absolutely. Some people try to divide the image of God in two, along clear lines, a la “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. I don’t see that supported in scripture. But if Christian men can have only those characteristics that are considered by the U.S. culture to be *masculine*, lest their “biblical manhood” be threatened, and vice versa…the church is losing out on the possibilities that are presented by people living out our full humanity in Christ.

Comment by Robyn

July 19, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

Exactly. If there is an absolute standard, laid out by God, of what it means to be a man or a woman, what is left to say to our Christian brothers and sisters from non-Western cultures that may have different ideas about such things?

What is left to say to those in our own culture who do not fit such stereotypes? Should my husband stop caring for our children because it’s not the “macho” thing to do? Or should he continue to do so because God has given him a nurturing instinct that sometimes surpasses my own? Should I hand over our finances to my husband, even though I am far better with numbers? Or should I continue to manage our money and keep our family solvent since God has gifted me more in that area?

Comment by Jane

July 19, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

You have to Go look at ancient Mesopotamia Culture to understand Proverbs 31 too, because women did in NO way to All those jobs by herself alone, one, it’s time wise Impossible, two, they structure of both the Tribes and the Family were Very different AND the economies, were different–as well as social mores,

men were often at WAR so women Had, like in WWII, to run the household, if men were NOT at WAR they were Hunting/ women did in fact a lot of the farming, men did husbandry but so did women, so in many ways Women had far more Independence,

however due to the Agrarian society/tribal, there was maidservants, just like in pioneer days Children worked on farms, it took All day, in early America, for girls to spin, while the wife, would do the cleaning/making soap/and cooking and farming. So the structure of family-labor was different, Keep that in mind,

the peasant woman, the laborer, was probably not all dolled up in temples like in Egypt, she had to work hard, independent, she was most likely in some families Educated in husbandry/vineyards, etc., and merchant buying [the early trade spice/silk route then], and SHE was MANAGER OF THE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, that is what Keeper of the Home is

God was saying, HER works shall praise her in the Gates, in other words,
HE values the Labor of Women, that Patriarchy and foolish Men, have devalued, as Worth more than Rubies…and Wise men, will Know this, it Is yes, a role model, for young women, learning how to be Godly women.

also there are Symbolism, just like all over the Bible, in Proverbs 31 one example, the part about She makes clothes of scarlet to keep warm, Scarlet is a COLOR, colors don’t keep you WARM…that really means, she makes garments of Love, to keep family warm, in Comfort, she weaves love into the coats, which for the well to do then were of many colors, but most were just one color or if they could, get indigo, or dyed, etc., but they were weaved and it took a Lot of time, to make just one coat, with Love, weaving, in ALL ancient cultures was an Art form, that expressed family or cultural lineage and even told stories…that took threads, there is So much wisdom in this.

Anyway, men also did weaving, in ancient cultures but another example, is the she gets up in early morning and feeds meat to her maid servants, well, maid servants did the cooking–usually, bread had to be milled by hand, then baked in adobe ovens, or pits, etc., so that doesn’t mean meat, like in actual meat, but in meat, I believe, in teaching…and in caring for. Everyone had a portion-labor in that era, a lot of work, hard work, so it’s not like the gender roles that have been applied today,

to see patriarchs with modern work for men attempting to force women back into B.C. with Proverbs 31 but without the same methods of labor and family TRIBES, is just proof of insanity beyond measure,

today, to apply Proverbs 31 would mean, a woman who labors for her family, who loves, who cares, who reaches out to the poor, who is a good steward of environment, would be worth more than rubies….it’s about her ethics, behavior, love, nurturing, care and fear of the Lord but her Heart is good, and SHE is Valued in God’s eyes, and Wise men, will seek out such a wife…

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the modern patriarchal version, it’s so shallow and well, really the more one looks into ancient culture and how the Bible applies, I would say, one would be wise, to study indigenous cultures [like in South America/in Costa Rica, etc--that haven't been destroyed by Catholicism or other Patriarchal cultural genocides] today, that are egal, where women and men still hold to ancient customs, in weaving, child rearing, etc., who are far more in touch with the land, each other, respect of elders, etc., respect of woman-mother, and then, Proverbs 31 just makes a whole lot more sense.

Jane

Comment by Lin

July 20, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

This brings me to share the question I have asked many comps who teach a pink and blue Christianity:

How can women be Christlike, since Jesus Christ came as a male, if our non biological differences are so important?

Comment by Marjorie

July 20, 2010 @ 6:56 pm

I don’t mind being one of the “sons of God” or part of the “brethren in Christ,” if males don’t mind being part of “the bride of Christ.” Does it really matter?

Comment by Michelle

July 21, 2010 @ 1:13 pm

@Marjorie (91598) I’m sorry–I’d like to respond, I think, but I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you be more specific? Thank you. :-)

Comment by Marjorie

July 21, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

A clarification, Michelle:
When I am “in Christ,” and you, whoever that may be, male or female, are “in Christ,” it seems to me our gender-based language will always be inadequate. (Yes, it is a human construct, but that seems to be the best we humans can do.) It doesn’t make sense, from a purely human standpoint, to speak of both women and men as “sons of God” or “brethren in Christ” which the Scripture does. Similarly, it doesn’t make sense humanly to speak of both men and women as “the bride of Christ,” and yet the Scripture does. So are we making too much of gender tags, or as I originally asked, “Does it really matter?” Is this any clearer, or should I try again?

Comment by Jane

July 21, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

I’d like to chime in here if I may…Marjorie, Lin, here’s what I think does cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and even resentment.

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does, a Lot….because the Sons of God ERASES the female, even IF in Christ, it is still a form of Erasure of us, as Female. WE may have yes, gender constructs, but our Entire existence and knowing, HERE, has been, as our experiences and our treatment AS females, not as Sons. Even inwardly, on a spiritual, we are Effected differently, and here is where sexuality does play a huge role–because we receive Inward, either the kindness or the wrath/violence of men, their hate, some of us more than others…it’s NOT the same, as like, when Jesus said, nothing that enters a man defiles, with Women, yes if violence enters, it not only defiles it does deep Spiritual and Soul fragmentation–this is ONE area that really perturbs me about the Bible is that That REALITY, That TRUTH, has been deliberately left out.

So truthfully, Other than women being healed to be able to bear Children or to Serve a man [Peter's mother in law], the gender roles, we do not hear about inner healing of Women as Human Beings in the Bible, Anywhere, so in that regard [and I do talk to Jesus about this All the time] Women, as a person outside of the male, has already been erased. As woman she is wife, as maidservant she is slave/sex slave, etc.

Now, here is something–when I got a Catholic Bible for my birthday, because I wanted the non-Canonical books [which I do believe due to another scripture in Hebrews, they Did exist in 70 A.D. so there are some things there that I do wonder] but anyway, I wanted those books, ok, so anyway, I talked to the Monk or Priest, etc., who worked at the Catholic Bookstore, he Informed me, that in the Vatican there are Two letters, that they still have, I can’t recall the one but the other, was the letter from Mary Magdalene, so,

that DID exist, ok, it is in the Vatican, However it is in such deteriorated condition as is the other one, that they can’t use it or even read it. So, just based on that–that tells me, there was no doubt, a Deliberate erasure of the Female, in the books. Including Old Testament, some interesting things there too–

now add that, to Greek society and the obsession with homosexuality in Paul’s day, true, same with Roman society, so the whole thing with Sons of God–which btw, is Contrary to the Talmud where the OT says, often, both the sons AND DAUGHTERS, all over the place of OT, daughters of Zion, daughters of Egypt, etc.,

that, and in Every single depiction, though pagan they were, in Ancient Sumeria, Babylonia, Chaldea, on every stone, there are depictions of female angels, fallen they may be, or graven images, but they are FEMALE. The fact that the references in OT to these other gods, not the denial of their existence but that we were not to Worship them, there were female deities…so,

no Erasure there, just in New Testament written under Greek influence/language/Roman culture, etc. And let’s not forget, 300 years After the fact, 200 A.D. in Coptic Egypt, which still has book of Enoch, 300 for Catholics, which for long time they argued THEN after that, they didn’t allow Any peasant/and esp Woman to read anything,

So, I think, Yes, it Does matter….

when I asked Jesus about this, one thing HE did bring up to me, was the scripture where the Two WOMEN, WERE AT THE MILL, ONE WAS LEFT, THE OTHER TAKEN…

so we KNOW women, DO GO TO HEAVEN, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MISOGYNISTS CLAIMED IN THEIR TRANSLATIONS–

and Jesus didn’t say, she is transformed into a Male or Son, no, just that two women…HE made reference to WOMAN.

I then, am lead to believe, that the Sons of God, is a deliberate mistranslation, that it was either supposed to be Children of God or sons and daughters, like it is in OLD TESTAMENT–JEWISH BOOKS.

The men of then didn’t DARE mess with the Jewish Texts [other than the Protestants leaving out the post-exile books] and I would think, if they did, it would have caused some huge problems being that many in early church had Jewish background, and due to the persecutions of Jews prior to the putting the Canon together, who knows.

This again, is NOT a thus saith the Lord here, is NOT to be thought of as a Doctrine, I do NOT know, OK but this IS a theory or hypothesis of mine that I am questioning God about, a lot,

because I do think, Yes, it Does matter, a lot…and the idea of the ERASURE OF FEMALE, EVEN IF, ONLY SPIRITUALLY AND TURNING HER INTO ‘SONS’,

IS VERY BOTHERSOME, MISOGYNIST AND WOULD REALLY HAVE TO RELY ON A TOTAL MIND/SOUL WIPE–TO ERASE ALL MEMORY OF EVER HAVING BEEN FEMALE,

AND THAT, THAT TO ME, SOUNDS VERY CONTRARY, TO THE GOD, I KNOW, in HIS creation in nature all around us, in HIS reference to FEMALES AND DAUGHTERS in OLD TESTAMENT,

and if Jesus, our LORD GOD, is the same, yesterday, today, and forever,

I don’t think, it’s just the Sons of God…not in the generic sense, that we hear of…

SONS has to have a whole different meaning, in Heaven. At least, I think so.

Jane

Comment by Paula

July 21, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

I think of Christ as my righteousness. The basis of my acceptance with God is that I accepted, by faith, the work that Christ did to atone for my sin.

I was born into Adam. Sin was imputed to me as a consequence.

I was born again into Christ. Righteousness was imputed to me as a consequence.

I am accepted in the EXACT same way that Christ is accepted by God – totally & completely.

I know I have received the Holy Spirit who dwells in me and does not discriminate against me because ‘God is no respecter of persons.’

As a Christian, being “in Christ” is my identity. ‘My life is hidden with Christ in God.’ This supercedes how I identify myself by my age, gender, nationality, social standing, etc.

So, are we saying that it’s the words and terms we use, such as “in Him”, that is obscuring a believer’s ability to identify with the gospel and thus obfuscating the love of God?

Comment by Don Johnson

July 22, 2010 @ 8:43 am

I am egal.

There is a claim in the article that the 10 commandments do not discriminate along gender lines, but the Jewish sages certainly interpreted them to do so. Adultery was seen as only happening when a man (married or not) had sex with a married woman, this was because polygamy was allowed in the Mosaic covenants; the man was seen as violating the property rights of the husband the woman was married to.

Jesus correctly interpreted Torah in Mark 10 to point out that a wife could have adultery committed against her; see the “against her” clause in Mar 10:11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, …”

Comment by ls

July 22, 2010 @ 9:39 am

I am grateful to be able to access this blog and read these comments. I know people who are not at a place where they would even want to be reading this blog, even though I think it would help them as helping to clear the way to( 2 Peter 1 and John 1:12) ‘true knowledge of Jesus and the right to become children of God’. It’s complex, I guess. “what works for one may not work for another” , I’ve been told.

Another thing that has worked for me that came to mind when I read the comments here is a parachurch ministry rather than corporate church experience, although corporate church experience is also a part of my journey and planted seeds and probably some weeds, too, as also my family of origin did. I believe the structure of the parachurch ministry had nurturing elements and practices that greatly helped me draw closer to trusting God’s promises made available through Christ. I needed/need the nurture(and structure) and I needed/need change. It seems to me now that the structure helped to keep distractions from taking over so that we could take more Scripture in. There also, as a practice, within that ministry is great appreciation displayed for all people and their contributions and humility, an ‘all learning together and from each other’ feel to the environment.

But…what’s the ‘best that can be done’ , to use Katherine Bushnell’s language in reference to Biblical translations? What’s ‘the best that can be done’ environment/structure to help with growth and drawing others into the process?

Another description of some of the problem, I came across recently on a blog “Free Methodist Feminist”. I hope since that is public it is ok to repeat here as I really connected with the language there describing the ‘push for roles’. Well here is what I read:
“…the manipulation of religious language in Christian self-help books about family communication only furthers the confusion of individual’s gender ideology. For the individual to push back against the mainstream fundamentalist gender rhetoric they would have to push back against the very structure that supports their faith. THus, the relationship between individual faith and salvation is intrinsically connected to Biblical gender roles.”

Anyway, these thoughts of mine just seem to ‘fit’ with this topic.

ls

Comment by Michelle

July 22, 2010 @ 9:52 am

Thank you, Marjorie (91520).

I agree with Marjorie that our gendered language is inadequate. And though language evolves (American English, somewhat notoriously so), that might always be the case.

We will always be limited by our human understanding of God and God’s ways.

The language of “sons” is difficult to understand, today. There was a class at one church I attended that was called “Sonship”. I suppose it was called that because Jesus is God’s son, and we are/will be accepted as him–blameless and without fault–but for me, it contributed to feeling as though I had to in some way (as I think Jane has felt) become male before I am truly acceptable to God (I did not attend the class). For the sake of context, this was a church where women were not ordained (excluding them from the roles of elder and deacon), and served as worship singers or worked as unrecognized deacons.

So in the sense that language changes, and culture changes (often they change together, or in a somewhat related manner), it is important to consider language both in the context in which it was written, and in the context of the present, in my opinion. I am at a loss here in that my sole language is English.

To the original audiences, to call us all “children” of God would not have held the same meaning as it does today. The word “sons” means “heirs”, as we are all heirs of the kingdom, though Christ. I recall the first time I realized that: It was amazing.

I am not certain of this next part, so jump in if I am mistaken, but is it not the case that daughters were married off young, though they did indeed work to support the household, but that sons could stay in the household longer because they were not viewed as dragging it down in an economic sense? Don’t hesitate to let me know if I am way off base there.

My thinking is that with inheritance comes responsibility and work. So that as heirs, we are also all expected to work for–that is *toward*–the kingdom. Not in the same way, of course, as we possess different gifts. Yes, Jane–we experience God differently, as you express so well–and it is unwise to act as though we do not. What we should share is the common goal of bringing Christ’s kingdom to Earth, the best we can as humans. But we disagree on how to do that as well.

More *generally*: I’ve long believed that the hierarchical complementarian system, with its prescribed roles, showed a lack of faith that God created women and men to complement one another. So we must be certain that we differentiate men and women through some sort of power structure.

Comment by Paula

July 22, 2010 @ 10:11 am

THus, the relationship between individual faith and salvation is intrinsically connected to Biblical gender roles.

I’m not sure of the context of this quote, but it again raises the issue of what being “in Him” means, in my view.

I don’t believe being “in Him” has anything whatsoever to do with one’s gender at all. This is the basis of my belief in biblical egalitarianism. How one comes to faith is Christ should never be about an individual’s “role”, but one’s salvation should rest fully and completely on Christ’s atoning work. From that point on, our “roles” are completely insignificant. Not that what we do doesn’t play a part in the Body of Christ as Christians, but the “role” we have when we are saved is different than the person we become once we are born again.

Comment by Michelle

July 22, 2010 @ 10:12 am

Error:
“To the original audiences, to call us all “children” of God would not have held the same meaning as it does today. The word “sons” means “heirs”, as we are all heirs of the kingdom, though Christ. I recall the first time I realized that: It was amazing.”

Correction:
To the original audiences, to call us all “children” of God would not have held the same meaning as it does today. The word “sons” means “heirs”, as we are all heirs of the kingdom, through Christ. I recall the first time I realized that: It was amazing.

Comment by Michelle

July 22, 2010 @ 10:25 am

The quotation cited in post 91527 by ls:
“THus, the relationship between individual faith and salvation is intrinsically connected to Biblical gender roles.”

is being cited as part of the *problem* with the push for roles. Not as something that is good.

Comment by Paula

July 22, 2010 @ 11:45 am

Right, I understood that Michelle.

Comment by Jane

July 22, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. [I HAVE BECOME ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN (WOMEN), THAT I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME] 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it of it with you.”

I rest my case….

Jane

Comment by Paula

July 22, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

Jane,

The point I was trying to make was that our identity as Christians comes from our being new creations in Christ. It is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us that makes all the difference and transforms us completely. As a result of this transformation, the way we typically identify ourselves (by race, class, gender, age, etc) fades into insignificance in our relationships with one another in the Body of Christ.

From this understanding, then, we can address how biblical language is used to alienate us from one another in the Body.

For example, I completely agree with Michelle’s perspective in her post # 91529 as to how the class offered at her church entitled “Sonship” made her feel less significant as a woman. Calling the class “Sons and Daughters” would have been much more appropriate, especially since it was open to everyone.

You wrote:

Yes, Identity Does matter….Regardless of the doctrines

I understand how vitally important it is to use language that doesn’t marginalize or alienate women, or that acts as a barrier to keeping us from realizing our full identity in Christ. The need for us to use language that is inclusive must be understood from a correct interpretation of the gospel.

Therefore I believe doctrine is essential to the discussion. There must be a doctrinal basis for our agreement and for what kind of words we use to spread the gospel. If there isn’t agreement on essential doctrine, then you and I and people like us aren’t going to accomplish anything together in my opinion.

Go through,
Go through the gates!
Prepare the way for the people;
Build up,
Build up the highway!
Take out the stones,
Lift up the banner for the peoples! Isaiah 62:10

Comment by ls

July 22, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

In reference to 91530, trying to provide a better context , and reference to what was quoted in my previous comment:

The blog topic was dated as 5/25/2010 and titled:

“Gender Norms in Christian Co-Cultures Part III”

at http://freemethodistfeminist.wordpress.com/2010/.

Sorry I am not as technologically skilled in linking things, but hope that helps.

I, too, understood the quote as describing something that is ‘marketed’ but not necessarily Biblical.

ls

Comment by Lisa Guinther

July 22, 2010 @ 6:12 pm

May I add a “light” response to the early question of what is commonly known as “The Proverbs 31 Woman.” If you take those verses in a surface reading…as many a male Christian writer has used these words as a front-piece dedication to his wife…my next question invariably is… “ So are you a ‘Proverbs 31 Man?’” another words…do you sit around all day and gossip with your cronies?

Seriously though; a historical, contextual placement of those verses might be better served if you first understand the Who, what, where and when of those verses. These are “Wisdom” literature. All of Proverbs is a compilation of sayings attributed to Solomon (and others) or in this case a “King Lemuel” and what his mother taught him. Looking specifically at 31:10-31 are an acrostic, so in the Hebrew each line of poetry is the next successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet so there is an inference that these are arranged as memory verses to teach young people their letters. But always caution here… from Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (1993) I quote “…We must take care not to interpret a proverb by modern Western standards of desires.” (p.316) Wisdom literature is meant in many cases as just what it says “the sayings of the wise” from a culture and time far removed from the 21st century. But in understanding the context; now apply what it says about life then to what we know today…use common sense, plan ahead, be frugal, be industrious…that will apply to men and woman alike! (and don’t sit around on your butt all day gossiping on the phone or internet)

Comment by Liz

July 24, 2010 @ 12:38 am

Sue…as regards Proverbs 31, even though it is often used to describe the ‘ideal’ godly woman, it my not have been the original idea of the author. There are other accounts of things which women did, but are not used to describe what every godly woman should do. If we read these verses as a description of a woman who was known to the author, or even as a composite of several godly women, it takes on a different emphasis.

Comment by Theresa

July 24, 2010 @ 3:02 am

I’m sure you’ve answered this question a million times, but, here goes.
What do I do now? I am a member of a patricstically based denomination(Eastern Orthodoxy). I love my church, but it does gaul me that women are still relagated to traditional roles, even though they we highly honor the Mother of God and lots of female saints and martyrs. We admit, for instance, that women like Mary Magdelyn was “equal-to-the-Apostles”, and that the Theotokos was His first disciple.It seems the newcomers to the church are even more insistant on the traditional gender roles as pertains to the church.These guys are highly intellectual with supposedly a vast knowledge of church history and how the early church evolved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and can be a bit intimidating to someone like me,(although outside the confines of the church it’s just fine for females to rise to the top of any profession they choose). Do I change denominations? If so, where do I go where I can worship God with the Spirit of God and as Jesus as Lord and Saviour without being labeled as a “feminist,etc.”. I really just want to worship God!!!!!!!!

Comment by Liz

July 24, 2010 @ 9:00 am

Some may have noticed the ‘disappearance’ of some comments from this thread and this points up the fact that we take seriously the right to edit comments which we deem to be unhelpful to the discussion. It is good for us all to read the comment guidelines from time to time so that the Scroll can remain a place of safety and encouragement without fear of being verbally harrassed or demeaned.

Please continue the excellent discussion of this topic and I look forward to someone answering the question Therese has put forward.

Comment by Mara

July 24, 2010 @ 9:01 am

Some good comment about the Proverbs Woman.

Here is something I want to throw into the mix.

The words concerning the Proverbs woman have their origin, coming from the mouth of a woman who was instructing her son.

Our western culture has a tendancy to look at passages as a “to do” list.
Some have taken this “to do” list and reduced it down to an instruction to keep up with the laundry and dishes and keep the kids’ noses and bottoms wiped, etc. to line up with what some in our culture believe to be woman’s work.

Coming at it from this angle is all wrong.
It’s not a “to do” list. It’s a “can be” list.
It’s a “the sky is the limit” or “think outside the box” list for men to help them to stop putting their women into the confined spaces most cultures lay out for their women.

These confined spaces are NOT God’s design but the traditions of men that kill the spirit and clip the wingsd of their women.

Groups that are working so hard to define limits on women don’t like the Proverbs woman and work real hard to reduce HER down to their little boxes.

But that is not what she is for.

She is in there, imo, to blow the lid off these boxes and set women free to pursue whatever dreams and talents God gave them. Whether it’s teaching or commerce, caregiving, or designing art, she is capable and should not have her hands tied by slavish cultural limitations no matter how ‘high sounding’ and ‘biblical’ certain men make it out to be.

Comment by Mara

July 24, 2010 @ 9:04 am

Ooops.
Sorry.
I missed the post from Liz.
If I was out of line to continue on the Proverbs woman thing, I’m sorry.

Comment by Liz

July 24, 2010 @ 9:11 am

Not out of line at all Mara……..keep this discussion going. I was just mentioning that some comments had been removed but hopefully the thread is still holding together and making sense :-)

Comment by Liz

July 24, 2010 @ 9:12 am

Oh Yes….and how about everyone going to the HomePage of the Scroll and reading the latest Arise article. It fits in so well with the topic of this post about whether Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood are in fact ‘biblical’!

Comment by Michelle

July 24, 2010 @ 9:48 am

I don’t see prescriptions for “womanhood” and “manhood” in the Bible.

Yes, women and men are different. But whenever I see lists of the ways in which men and women are different, lists of the qualities each sex possesses, I see lists of cultural stereotypes (from white, middle-class culture in the US) of the sexes.

When I look to scripture for support of such lists, I don’t have much luck.

Comment by Paula

July 24, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

I agree Michelle. What if the next revolution in the world is the women of Islam rebelling against their repressors? What will Christian complementarians have to offer these women?

Comment by Lisa Guinther

July 26, 2010 @ 4:51 pm

Liz, been thinking about advice for Theresa all day. Let me get some rest, and I’ll post a response.

Comment by Lisa Guinther

July 26, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

Theresa;
I have spent the day thinking over your question, and there is no easy answer. I have a question for you to think about; are you willing to start the change?

You have before you millennia of traditions from the Anti-Nicene fathers to contend with. This is an entrenched patriarchy, and almost militantly so. And if you are willing to start this Sisyphus like up-hill battle, do you understand you may not see change in your lifetime. I cannot and nor can anyone else fight this battle for you. If you are called into ministry, or a leadership role within the Kingdom of God, you will have to “count the cost.”

Now, if you feel that this is a battle that God wants you to fight…this is my advice for a plan of action.

1. First, you spend months doing nothing but praying and reading the Bible at least 1-2 hrs/day for 6 months before doing anything (OT & NT). You will be going up against men who really know scripture. This is your foundation.

2. Then you research all the “proof-texts” that are used traditionally to deny women in ministry/service with in church government. You need to read ALL the commentaries regarding them…pro and con. Don’t rely on what I say, or Mimi, or Linda Bellville or anyone else…you have to understand them inside out…you have to own the cultural/ hermeneutical/interpretive understanding of those Scriptures.

3. Then you STUDY the Anti-Nicene father…the encyclopedia is available in any seminary library or invest in the collection from Amazon.com…you will be able to pick up all the volumes for not too big an investment.

Do you see what I am getting at? You need a seminary education on your own to go up against this! And you have to have a solid working knowledge of the Theology of the Eastern Church…and why they believe what they do and why the split…that is key!

I have pain in my heart for you; understand I have been lied to by pastors and driven out of a church, told by pastors “don’t come to my church” and asked by a friend with a MDiv to talk to her pastor for her. I do understand what you are up against. The pain is awful, yet I persevere in the face of this.

I have spent the last three years “getting good at this”…my Apologetic is getting seriously hard to beat…but one of my callings is to be a Christian Apologist. I am now in a church where I and two other men are leading one of the Adult Ed Classes this fall semester in Christian Philosophy (and we are taking turns). God has now opened the door for me, but I had to change churches to get this opportunity.

There is one other thing that I have learned from men in the business world…and all you women need to listen to this very carefully; as women you have to know how to play the game. This is what you have to do; build a coalition…Who are the leaders? Men. So you need men who are leaders to help you; to be ‘on your side.’ Do not step out all by yourself! You take the time to get leaders on your side. You find men with negotiation skills and leadership skills to teach you…God will send you the right teachers. I have a mentor (a man) a leadership coach (my direct supervisor at work…a man) and God keeps crossing my path with amazing leaders and their advice…keep your eyes open, and God will truly send you help when you need it. Women are not taught these skills…you have to seek them out and pray for God to send them your way…and write everything down!

Another thing…you can’t get upset in public…cry at home, in private.

If you truly decide to go forward with this…you can email me for advice (back check the link). I do have an old acquaintance I could tap that is a deacon in a Greek Orthodox Church; I may be able to tap him for information.

And lastly; you get yourself a network of “prayer-warriors” to pray for you every day. This is first and foremost a spiritual battle…get support.

Well, there you go…another “too much information Lisa” session!

Comment by Christensen

July 29, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

These blog entries are always an interesting read! I often don’t have time to read everyone’s post, but I hope that they challenge me in seeking what the Bible says on this issue.

I do have a bit of a “situation” to see what you guys think. I am a complete egal male. Right now, I’m engaged to a young lady who is an egal…but still sees things from her cultural viewpoint (as in she still expects me to play the “role” of a male sometimes. But since she is Korean, that is hard to know what that role is at times. And I’m grateful that she is willing to bend and let me be less stuck in any role). Anyways. Not exactly the point.

The other day, we were watching Danny Noreiga’s videos on youtube (he competed on American Idol). The guy sometimes dresses up in drag and acts VERY effeminant. Though, my fiancee insists that he is not gay. OK. That’s fine. I was considered effeminant in Texas, where I grew up, because I wrote poetry, hung out with women and just basically was not a cowboy or jock. I didn’t play the role of a “macho” guy in Texas. And that is what I think Danny Noreiga is doing. Being in a culture that seems very much about “machismo”, it seems that he has rebelled and taken on female qualities. Possibly, like me, he grew up detesting how men treat women or how men are expected to be aggressive (and caveman like). Possibly, like me, his thoughts were engendered because he just didn’t fit the mold of a “man” that his culture demanded.

Though, my question is this. What do we do with the men who choose to act like women? Is this different? I kinda find it different. On one hand, you can attempt to destroy the mold of what it means to be a “man” and seek to simply be made in the image of God. On the other hand, you can desire to be what you are not – another gender. I am a man, but what does that exactly mean other than the scant physical differences and my inability to bear children? Am I being wrong (or even sinning) that I like to cry? Am I being too much of a woman when I tenderly hug my fiancee’s little sister when she is crying?

Please do pray for me. Even though my fiancee is willing to subvert the gender roles and seek equality in our relationship, her parents do not see it that way. Even last night, I was told what their expectations were of me since I was the “man”. And believe me! No American man would be able to fulfill the Korean expectations! Anyone have $150,000 that I could have?

Comment by Liz

July 29, 2010 @ 9:00 pm

I am not familiar with the guy from American Idol but it would seem that a lot depends on whether a person is happy with how God has made them (either male or female) How we live our lives and what things we enjoy doing, should display Christ-likeness which is neither female or male. If a person desires to be another gender, then that is a whole other situation which would need careful counselling.

Crying and showing compassion is not a feminine trait, but that of a sensitive human being and I hope you continue to be that person, even in the Korean culture.

Comment by Don Johnson

July 30, 2010 @ 7:09 am

There is a lot of garbage that supposedly is what “real men” or “real women” do. All people have emotions and express them in various ways, it is NOT the case that women are more emotional. All people have a mind and use it in various ways, it is not the case that men are more rational.

Comment by EM

July 30, 2010 @ 10:06 am

Ditto, Don. WHY is that so hard for people to understand. As a MB ENTJ female, I regularly feel that both male and female Christians are wanting to push me into their mold for what I should be as a woman rather than appreciating the image of God in me. I see the same problem with sensitive guys or those who desire to be, say a drama teacher rather than an electrician. They get called “gay” and ridiculed their whole lives. It’s hard for them to find meaningful male friendship because they aren’t macho enough. Men and women are both rational and emotional image bearers – ensouled bodies and embodied souls. We are both needed and one isn’t better than the other. Praying for the church to come to a better understanding of imago Dei.

Comment by Deborah

July 30, 2010 @ 11:26 am

CL,

Oooo… sorry to hear you’ve hit a difficult spot w/ the parents. Much grace to ya.

If some sociological science might help you sort out how God created you, then here are some suggestions: The Mismeasure of Women by Carol Tavris and My Brother’s Keeper by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. I think sometimes we can be less than whole in our sexual expression (and I mean this in a sociological rather than erotic sense) b/c of wounds or generational junk. I know I’ve had to go through some transformations that ended up healing and developing both traditionally feminine and traditionally masculine parts of myself. But my goodness, David soaked his bed with tears!!!! You’re a man and a good creation; we’re all being changed from glory to glory… and I don’t think you should ever stuff up the tear flow.

D

Comment by Sonnet

July 30, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

“Jesus wept.” John 11:35

Comment by Michelle

August 1, 2010 @ 8:38 am

@ Theresa

That’s a difficult question. I don’t know much about the tradition of Orthodoxy. What little I have heard (more usually read) from people…Orthodoxy and Protestantism may view Christ differently? Just to let you know of a possible bump in the road if you do decide to look into other churches.

Re: Protestantism, there are many different practices in terms of liturgy and all sorts of other things. Note that Protestants who do not recognize women as equals in the home and/or in the church are not necessarily “up front” about this–you can’t always find that information on their website, for example. And practices even from church to church, within a denomination, can vary widely.

I understand about just wanting to worship. I’m in a situation where I’m attending my husband’s church. But sometimes I have the opportunity to visit another church, or take part in another activity, so it is through these other things that I am able to worship and to be fed. I do these things at the same time I work for recognition of equality and the restoration of the full image of God at my husband’s church.

Comment by Liz

August 1, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

Another aspect of looking for features of being a man or woman is that both secular and Christian ‘experts’ often resort to comparison with female and male animals when looking at traits. How sad for Christians to look to God’s created animals and birds to learn how we should act and relate to one another.

Comment by ls

August 2, 2010 @ 12:13 am

It is additionally sad when the animal kinds used in examples are picked to promote, the ‘wiring’ they want to say is male or female, or authority structure they want to convey and promote. I’ve heard geese used in an example to show streamlined authority. But the geese are not used as an example for mating practices. Why is that? I think it’s marketing not science, even from a secular perspective. Richard P Feynman’s thoughts on a definition of science in his book “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” is that “science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” A ‘Berean’ approach would be welcomed, I think, by any teacher seeking truth, secular or Christian.

Comment by Liz

August 2, 2010 @ 3:13 am

What a great definition of science! Another twist on the comparison with animals is as you said about geese…..some things are used but not consistently eg. male birds are often more colourful which is said to me to attract females and therefore excuses showing off by male humans. However….what about male emus which look after the young birds ? I’ve never heard that used to suggest that male humans should look after young humans.

Comment by Sonnet

August 2, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

Canadian geese alternate their positions within their v-shaped flight. Otherwise, the greater wind resistance would tire out the one in the lead position.

Comment by Sarah

August 3, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Liz – I know it’s off topic, but I’ve always found the animal arguments odd for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the animal world, taken as a whole, doesn’t exhibit the pattern. The female is larger and arguably dominant in many raptors, such as eagles, females of many fish and reptile species are also larger (an extreme example being the anglerfish, where the tiny male attaches himself to the female – permanently). And lets not even start discussing invertebrates. Even among animals that seem to fit the male dominance pattern the story is often more complex upon examination. Besides, why would fallen animal life be a trustworthy guide to what human society is supposed to look like?

re: Proverbs 31 – I don’t know how rigorous the scholarship might be, but I always liked what my OT survey prof taught at the firmly comp. Bible college I attended – that the Prov. 31 woman was a picture of a wise *person* living the principles taught in the rest of the book; in short, not just an example for women, but for everyone :-)a

Comment by Jane

August 4, 2010 @ 11:12 am

~~sigh~~ No, male birds are more colorful because female birds, are more muted/neutral to

PROTECT THE NESTS WITH THE EGGS-YOUNG,

scientific FACT.

It’s the camouflage, the blander colors [though not always, peacock females are all white] BLEND IN with the natural environment, such as browns/grays with tree bark, in parrots, blue Asiatics blend with the sky, or the green Asiatics blend with the leaves of forests, it just depends

and then the huge parrots with the RED, the red is a danger warning signal, that they flash,

attempting to anamorphic gender roles based on animals with a real IGNORANCE of botany-zoology and basing roles or gender on patriarchal NONSENSE,

is like the evolutionist that ignores all the archeological findings that disprove the whole we are from monkey’s nonsense.

The animal kingdom is just too diverse and while we can learn patterns about human behavior and even social groups from hierarchy, matriarchy and matri-linear, to solitary,

to base gender and society assumptions [which Darwin and other supremacists of either Gender, Class, Race, love to do] on one particular animal group, leaves a huge imbalance–the Only thing that is Common among the animal groups is that they are all connected to each other or interdependent for survival, if one is out of balance it effects the entire ecological system. And of course we see that happening today,

not by God, no,

but by Man’s Dominion with women’s help by none other than ridiculous nationalist, patriarchal and consumption capitalist idol worship…

Jane

Comment by Deborah

August 9, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

Fyi, one pastor I appreciate (himself comp) says that the Prov 31 woman represents the whole Bride of Christ, virtues that are spread throughout us and exhibited as we come together in maturity.

Comment by TL

August 10, 2010 @ 10:52 am

Deborah, 91631
“says that the Prov 31 woman represents the whole Bride of Christ, virtues that are spread throughout us and exhibited as we come together in maturity.”

The problem with a comp having such an opinion is that next he will be saying that the leadership aspects of the Prov. 31 wife are exhibited in the men only, and so forth in absurdity.

A more balanced view is that IN CHRIST we are all things as God needs us to be. We are all full inheritors of all God’s blessings and manifestation of the Holy Spirit as the “sons of God”, and we are all lovers of God as the Bride of Christ. We are also all warriors fighting the faith and athletes running the race. And we are all children trusting in the lead of Jesus, our bigger (mature/perfect) brother. And so forth.