The CBE Scroll

When most of us egalitarians have a friend with questions about women in ministry, we offer them one of a few classic books.  We give them Gilbert Bilizekian’s Beyond Sex Roles or one of the multi-views books published by InterVarsity Press or Zondervan or perhaps (if we’re really creative!) refer them to an article on the CBE website.  We now, however, have at least one entirely different option: Scot McKnight’s new book The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible.

The remarkable thing about Scot’s book is that it’s not really about women in ministry or anything else relating to gender–it is, as the title, suggests, about how to read the Bible.  The first section of the book is about reading the Bible as a larger narrative (similar to how N. T. Wright suggests we read it in books of his like The Last Word), the middle sections are about ways to interpret the Bible, and the final section applies these principles to the issue of women in ministry.  The genius of the book is twofold:

(1) Those that have no interest in gender issues may end up thinking about them because they wanted to read this book about interpreting Scripture.

(2) Those that are interested in gender issues can read this book and focus a lot less on the back-and-forth between egalitarians and complementarians (which has its place) to, instead, consider this much broader and–in many ways–more important issue of how to read the Bible.  Once their way of reading the Bible is different, it’s unlikely they can return to their same old views of gender nearly as easily.

Admittedly, there were aspects of the book I wasn’t completely enthused by, and you may wish to read a more complete review of the book on Amazon or Christianity Today before giving it to a friend.  However, solely considering its merit as a resource with the potential to improve the status of women in Western evangelical churches, I am quite impressed.

What I most admire about the book is its ability to see the big picture.  While many of us are so passionate about gender issues that we could spend all day discussing the related Bible passages, Scot realizes the interpretation of these passages is not his top priority.  Seeing the many academics that debate women’s roles, I think we often forget the place most lay people are in: it’s not just that they don’t know the Greek and Hebrew to solve this gender mystery themselves.  Rather, if we are to ever move forward on this, or many other issues in the church, we’re going to have to study–and dialog about–how to read the Bible to begin with.   After all, few of our churches really teach us to handle this seemingly basic task.

Scot’s book may not please everyone in the sophistication of his argument for women’s equality, nor the depth of its coverage of this larger question about Scripture, but I think we could learn a lot from his humble willingness to let the specific issues of women in ministry take a backseat while we work tirelessly to improve general interpretive skills.  Each emphasis has its place in our writing and teaching, of course, but The Blue Parakeet fills a gap few seem to have noticed.  While it’s crucial to continue our study of the specific issue of women in ministry, let’s not forget the foundational questions we must help people answer in order for them to mature in their faith.  We may be surprised just how well more specific issues like gender equality can be connected to these larger questions and how much more open people are to new ideas when approached from that broader and potentially less threatening angle.

I have a question about the translation of 1 Timothy 2:12. Click here to view the interlinear reading of this verse.

At 2:12, there are three notable differences between the English interlinear underneath the Greek text, and the English translation on the right.

Difference 1: The English interlinear is in the present tense, as indicated by the words ‘I AM permittING NOT-YET.’ But in the English translation on the right, the sense of ‘NOT-YET’ is not carried over. It makes a sentence that appears to deal with a particular moment in time sound like a command for all time. Why was it translated this way?

Difference 2: The English interlinear translates authenein as ‘to be domineering’ but the English translation on the right translates it as ‘authority over.’ Why was it translated this way?

Difference 3: The English interlinear translates hesuchia as ‘quietness,’ but the English translation on the right translates it as ‘silence.’ Why was it translated this way?

Can anyone tell me what is going on here?

Why do some people say that there is no evidence kephale can mean ‘source’ or ‘origin?’

The Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott Greek lexicon lists, among the possible meanings of the Greek word kephale (translated as ‘head’ in English), ‘source’ or ‘origin.’ This is the word translated ‘head’ in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”) and Ephesians 5:23 (“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior”).

Here’s the reference from the lexicon, and a link to the same entry, here.

d. in pl., source of a river (Hdt. 4.91) (butsg., mouth, oida Gela potamou kephalêi epikeimenon astu Call.Aet.Oxy.2080.48 ): generally, source, origin, Zeus k. (v.l. arkhê), Zeus messa, Dios d’ ek panta teleitai tetuktai codd.) Orph.Fr.21a; starting-point, k. khronou Placit. 2.32.2 (kronou codd.), Lyd.Mens.3.4; k. mênos ib.12.

And yet, there are those who insist that there is no evidence that ‘source’ or ‘origin’ are acceptable meanings for the word. Why is this?

Mutuality is now accepting articles (and discussion surrounding the issue) for the Summer 2008 issue on ‘Resolving Conflicts.’

Topic ideas include, but are not limited to:

• How convictions about biblical equality and gender justice apply to resolving conflict
• Biblical alternatives to ‘the tie-breaking-vote’ model of conflict resolution by female submission to male headship
• The importance of prayer for resolving conflict
• Whether there is a ‘middle way’ between egalitarianism and male headship
• Appropriate and inappropriate anger
• Biblical reflections: examples of how Jesus handled conflict, Jacob and Esau’s reconciliation, rivalry between Sarah and Hagar, etc.
• Examples of Christians who are/were reconcilers as well as examples of Christians who refuse(d) to compromise on truth
• Practical tips and reflections on race and gender reconciliation in Christ

Please send specific ideas or proposals to mgreulich@cbeinternational.org.

‘If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty placed on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.’ (Deuteronomy 24:5)

This was actually the second instance of Scripture I noticed in my reading of Deuteronomy where allowance was made for the priority of marriage over the duties of a soldier (cf. Deuteronomy 20:7).

But, what strikes me particularly about this verse is the latter half. In a completely patriarchal society, one would expect for the exhortation to be ‘so that his wife can bring him happiness’ – but instead, the opposite is being commanded. Why do you think this is the case?

To me, it reveals that the idea of marriage being created for the enjoyment of both husband and wife is not a new man-made (or ‘woman’-made) idea. I think the tendency in that society was for the men to live like it was all about them (If we read all the stories about the patriarchs/men of the Bible, it would seem that they made all the decisions – wise ones for their families and also not-so-wise-ones to save their own neck or to satisfy their desires and make themselves happy – even to take more than one woman (slave/concubine), even though that wasn’t how God wanted things.), so, in light of that, perhaps God needed to spell it out plainly that it was important to him that the husbands sought after bringing happiness to their own wives.

What do you think?