August 8, 2014

By Leslie Keeney:

The other benefit of wearing heels is less easily described, but more powerful—something akin to both courage and confidence, but not quite either. Something that comes from deciding not to pretend I’m not female when walking through the predominantly male world of evangelical academics.

Anyone old enough to have been sentient in the 1980s remembers that a lot of women dressed, as Harrison Ford’s character in “Working Girl” said, “like a woman thinks a man would dress if he was a woman.” Thankfully, only lawyers still have to dress that way, but any woman who works in a field like Christian academics runs the risk of giving in to the siren call of downplaying the fact that she’s not a man.

The title of Scot McKnight’s book “The Blue Parakeet,” refers (in part) to women who are called to teach and lead, but whose very presence baffles and confuses the sparrows feeding peacefully in the contemporary church. It is this image that sticks in my head when I’m walking down the hallway towards a room where I am likely to be the only woman.

It’s not the case that every man considers the blue parakeet something to be avoided. Some of them are glad we finally found our way to the backyard feeder. But whether welcomed or not, the fact of us changes whatever room we walk into. No matter how hard we try to hide it, our bodies are shaped differently and our voices are higher. Our femaleness cannot be kept under wraps. Our very presence disrupts the dynamics of the suit and tie club.

June 12, 2014

In his new book, Surprised by Scripture, N.T. Wright sketches his case for the ordination of women. What is for some of us an already established set of observations on the basis of the Bible is for others not only contested by problematic. In fact, for some affirming the ordination of women is a way of denying the Bible (and tradition) while for others denying women is denying the Bible (but not much of the tradition).

His study is not extensive but does cover the bases, beginning with the important observation that Galatians 3:28 affirms the place of women alongside men in the family of God. The text is not about ministry. The key observation for Wright is that “male and female” is from Genesis 1:26-27 and Paul is here de-privileging male authority and power. But Paul has not denied difference or distinction: Jews remain Jews, Gentiles remain Gentiles, men stay men and women stay women, slave will remain slaves and free will be free. This is not to say Paul’s theology will not work to equalize all it can, but the point Wright is making is distinction remains.

There were women “leaders” in the early church, and Wright begins with Mary Magdalene as the apostle to the apostles; with Junia (not Junias); with Mary and Martha, a story he contends is not about two callings, one active, one passive, but about posturing as a student under Jesus in order to become a teacher (that’s what studenting was about).

1 Corinthians 14 on silence. They sat apart, men and women did. The women who were not as educated would not know and could disrupt a service and were told to wait until they got home to ask their questions. But women, 1 Cor has already shown, participated in public worship so this is not about total silence. Wright does not press the silence-while-learning and speaking-once-taught theme, which is clear for him in 1 Tim 2.

Head coverings in 1 Cor 11. Wright’s view is that this text is affirming a distinction between sexes and a distinction that is to be seen in their dress and appearance. In worship they are to be their true selves; this also means for Wright that women were not to copy men but to be women in their public ministries. This, of course, is an interesting, evocative and unresolved set of observations, but his point is that diversity of sexes is of value in the church.

Finally, 1 Tim 2, where he argues — as he did in his little commentary on the pastorals — that women are to learn in silence and, once taught, were more than capable of teaching.  Paul is countering the possibility, esp in Ephesus, that educated women might take over and Paul does not that misunderstanding to arise (hence “usurp”). The problem of his teaching (Paul’s teaching) is the worrisomeness of some that women might take it too far and start acting like Ephesian, aggressive, usurping women (in their cultic worship practices). [I have a similar thesis in my The Blue Parakeet.]

March 18, 2014

Several weeks ago I put up a post That “Women” Question looking at comments by N. T. Wright on the text of 1 Timothy 2 and the role of women in the church.  Wright’s response referred to his small commentary Paul for Everyone, The Pastoral Epistles where he provides a translation of verses 11-15 and a discussion of the context. Wright’s approach is similar to the arguments developed by Scot in his book The Blue Parakeet.

Today I would like to outline Wright’s arguments on 1 Timothy 2, and on the other “problem” passage 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 with some reference to The Blue Parakeet as well. I’ll come back with some of my own comments and thoughts in a later post.

The NIV translates 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Wright translates the passage with a significantly different twist:

They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed. Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and fell into trespass. She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence. (p. 21-22)

While many assume that the instruction to learn in quietness and full submission refers (of course) to submission to male teachers, Wright suggests that the submission is instead an attitude of submission as learners to God.

The next verse Wright, along with Scot in the The Blue Parakeet and a number of others, takes as a reference to the specific cultural context of Ephesus where women were the active as priests and religious leaders in the Temple of Artemis. The word behind “assume authority over”  in the NIV or “try to dictate to” is an unusual word according to Wright. The dictionary I have provides definitions such as “an absolute master”or “to govern, exercise dominion over one.” Clearly there is no biblical warrant for women (or men for that matter) to act as absolute masters exercising  dominion over others within the church. The language of the New Testament is permeated with mutual submission, love, cajoling, and convincing.  The strong language, when it occurs, is directed towards those who in some fashion fail to act in love, instead abusing others.

So why the reference to Adam and Eve? Scot suggests that the reference is to a context in Ephesus where it was suggested that women are naturally superior to men.  Paul, consistent with the rest of the New Testament was denying this – women are not superior or inferior to men. This is an interesting idea as there is certainly a “feminist” strand in our culture that makes the same kind of claim concerning the superiority of women. Wright doesn’t take this tack, but gives a different possibility. The reference to Adam and Eve doesn’t point to the weakness of Eve or the superiority of Adam, but to the need for education, study, and submission to God. Eve was deceived because she hadn’t been taught. Adam on the other hand sinned deliberately, disobeying the direct command from God.

Wright concludes his commentary on this passage:

Let’s not leave any more unexploded bombs and mines around for people to blow their minds with. Let’s read this text as I believe it was intended, as a way of building up God’s church, men and women, women and men alike. Just as Paul was concerned to apply this in one particular situation, so we must think and pray carefully about where our own cultures, prejudices and angers are taking us. We must do our best to conform not to any of the different stereotypes the world offers, but to the healing, liberating, humanizing message of the gospel of Jesus. (p. 27)

The other significant text is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Frankly I don’t worry much about this passage because I think the textual evidence that this is a later addition is compelling. As a result I think that these verses should be treated the way we treat the long ending of Mark or the the story of the woman caught in adultery. The value should be judged by conformity with the rest of scripture, especially the rest of the letter to the Corinthians and Paul’s practices. However, Wright (Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians) is not convinced the passage is a later addition, (for good reasons I might add) and discusses it at length. His translation of this passage doesn’t have the twist that his translation of 1 Timothy has. In fact it seems rather traditional, quite similar to the NIV (although substituting the word assemblies for churches). But Wright emphasizes that we need to look at the overall cultural and biblical context, and this context shapes his interpretation.

He [Paul] clearly doesn’t mean that no women must speak during worship. As we saw, chapter 11 assumes that women will take leadership roles in praying and ‘prophesying’ just as much as men will. And I simply don’t think Paul has any agenda about keeping women in a downtrodden condition, as has often been suggested. What we have to reckon with is a possible scenario, or a set of possible scenarios, that might explain the sudden need for a commandment of this type. (p. 198-199)

The letters of Paul were written to particular audiences in particular times and places. While the theology and much of the instruction is timeless, we have to remember that we are only getting part of the picture from the letter itself.  What is off-stage for us may change the true meaning of a passage. Wright goes on to list a couple of potential scenarios that could shape the way that this command came about  and concludes:

Either of these may describe the situation Paul faced; or there may have been another possibility. We don’t know. What is clear is that this is a particular problem posed from within the cultural setting of the time, and that Paul’s overriding concern (if the passage is indeed written by him) is for order, peace and mutual upbuilding when the congregation comes together for worship, rather than for chaos, interruption and dissension. (p. 200)

Scot suggests a slightly different take on this passage in The Blue Parakeet, but one that is consistent with the spirit of Wright’s suggestions. Both agree that context is the key to understanding the passage – both context in scripture, including the roles that women play in other passages,  and the cultural context into which the letter was written.

The third option comes from Craig Keener, an expert scholar on the historical background to the New Testament, who keenly observes that Paul’s own words clarifies this best. Paul silences women in regard to asking questions: “If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands [if they are married] at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak [inquire about something they don’t yet understand] in the church.”  I think Keener gets this one right.

Why would Paul restrict the asking of questions? The best answer to this question is because these women were not yet educated theologically or biblically as well as the men. (That’s another discussion.) When these women heard what was being said, they had questions. Paul thinks those sorts of questions should be asked elsewhere, probably because it interrupted the service. This conclusion has significant implications. Paul’s silencing of women at Corinth is then only a temporary silencing. Once the women with questions had been educated, they would be permitted then to ask questions in the gatherings of Christians. (p. 193)

The emphasis here on education is consistent with the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 given by Wright, where the issue is not women as teachers but the need for adequate preparation and study before anyone begins to teach or speak out publicly.

I’ll come back with some of my own thoughts on these passages and the issues they raise in our culture today in a future post. This is plenty of food for thought and for conversation.

What do you think of these interpretations?

How would you determine if an interpretation is “wishful thinking” or legitimate?

It strikes me as interesting that so many embrace the interpretation that men are the naturally superior leaders and teachers without much reflection, but consider a view of complementarity without hierarchy or rigid role separation a”stretch”.

Where does the burden of proof lie? Why?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

January 30, 2014

I’ve put up a two posts on N.T. (Tom) Wright’s  response to listener questions posed by Justin Brierley on the radio show Unbelievable. (The link to the show: NT Wright on Paul, Hell, Satan, Creation, Adam, Eve & more – Unbelievable? – 01 November 2013, or the entire Unbelievable audio feed with more shows and more information on each show.) The first looked at his view on evolution and Adam (yes to both), and on Tuesday we moved on to look at what Wright had to say about miracles. Today I would like to consider a less controversial question (ha! If you believe that I have some …). This segment starts about 48:00 in the mp3 file.

Justin: An issue that often comes up in the context of Paul is women and what he says about male female relationships, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free and so on. Lucy for instance wanted to ask this quick question. I’m sure you’ve tackled it a number of times … “What is your reading and therefore application of a passage like 1 Timothy 2 in particular with reference to v. 11?”  When it comes to these issues, what is your general understanding of what Paul’s getting at, what the whole thing is about?

This question gets to an issue which is at least as big a stumbling block to Christian faith in our Western world as the issues of evolution and creation, naturalism vs divine action. One of the biggest questions that always comes back to me as a Christian in the academy focuses on this issue. “How can I be a Christian given how poorly women are treated?” And, of course, 1 Timothy 2 is a key passage, perhaps the key passage. Verse 11 highlighted in the question above is translated in the NIV “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.”  Wright responds to the question – and as always the transcript is flat, missing some of the meaning. Listen to the show if interested.

I don’t know if your listeners will have 1 Timothy 2 to hand, let alone in the Greek text. Part of the difficulty there is that Paul uses there some very unusual words which are difficult to translate.

Justin: Can you give us the words in English first?

It depends, because this is precisely what is at issue, the translation and I don’t have my own translation here in the studio with me. But I would say to anyone who wants to know what I really think is going on here, look at Paul for Everyone, The Pastoral Epistles which is the little commentary that I did on the Pastorals because I actually spend longer on that passage than on most other passages there for obvious reasons. Because the way it has been translated there does not do justice I think to the nuanced thing that Paul is saying. Paul is writing almost certainly to a situation in Ephesus where religion was basically a female thing. You have Diana, Artemis the great goddess, who only has female priests, that is deep in the Ephesian culture. And it is very natural therefore that if this seems to be like a new religion, this Christianity thing, that people in Ephesus might assume well basically let’s find the women to be the leaders. … And I think what is being said when Paul is talking about allowing women to study privately and given the leisure to study it doesn’t mean they should sit down, shut up, and go and make the tea, it means that they must have the leisure to be themselves students. But then he says, “I’m not saying that women should take over the show,” which is a cultural reference to what they might have assumed in that place. But that they have to be given space to learn and then we will all go ahead together.

… (At Justin’s question, Wright goes into the “to have authority” phrase. I’m going to jump over this bit.)

(51:00-53:35) Why is it in certain bits of our culture that people take that little verse from 1 Timothy 2 so seriously and they ignore large chunks of what is going on in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? And this is really very serious as a critique of bits of our contemporary Christian culture. Why are we so fixated and nervous about this? When I talk about this issue I always start with John 20. This is not an accident that when Jesus is raised from the dead the first person who is commissioned to tell other people that he’s alive, that he’s the Lord, that he’s ascending to the Father, is Mary Magdalene. That, you know, John does nothing by accident. Jesus did nothing by accident for goodness sake. That’s the beginning of the announcement of the Christian gospel and it is given to Mary Magdalene. From that point, this is part of new creation. Everything’s different now guys. And what Paul is doing is navigating within a very interesting bit of pagan culture how that works and doesn’t work. “I don’t mean that the women should take over, and I don’t mean that the women should boss everyone else around. They must be given leisure to study, its not an either or, we’ve got to do this together.”

Justin: But in a sense, for millenia, the church did take a certain view on those kinds of passages, or whether it was just a cultural thing, I don’t but … it’s a relatively recent phenomenon that women have been ordained and so on.

It is and it isn’t. In the New Testament you have Junia who is an apostle in Romans 16. I know there’s been lots of debate about that but anyone listening who is worried about that, it is absolutely certain exegetically, linguistically, contextually, that in Romans 16 Paul refers to Junia as an apostle. He also has entrusted Romans, the greatest letter ever written, to a lady called Phoebe who is a deacon in the church at Cenchreae. She’s an office bearer; she’s on her way on a business trip to Rome. Women were quite independent in that world. The idea that all women in the first century were sort of, you know, dumbed down little house fraus, that’s absolutely not the case. There are plenty of independent women of independent means. Phoebe therefore is the carrier of the letter to Rome and that almost certainly means, not only would she read it out, but that if they had questions they would ask her. It is highly likely that Phoebe was the first person in history to expound the letter to the Romans. Now when you get that in the text, and Junia as an apostle, and the other people in Romans 16 who are clearly in ministry, some as husband wife teams, some as independent men, some as independent women, then you know, I want to say lighten up guys, why are we so worried about this?    … ( a little more – suggesting, perhaps, that this is an issue where the Church in a few hundred years will wonder how we could have held a “men only” view, and then it was time for a station break.)

Wright’s last statement in response to the issue about women as bishops in the Church of England sums this up (he has more to say about the issue – but this is the bit relevant to this post).

(57:11-57:35) As I say, I make no bones about it, the basic foundation of all Christian ministry is the announcement that the crucified Jesus has been raised from the dead, and the first person who does that is Mary Magdalene. I rest my case; don’t need to go any further. It’s there in John 20. And from there on the idea of women in leadership ought to have been a natural. And as I say, we see it in Paul, let’s do it.

I’ve quoted this at length because I think it is worth some serious discussion. What Wright says in this interview is in line with many of the points that Scot has raised over the years, both on the blog and in his book The Blue Parakeet. Wright’s argument is centered on a number of issues. The most significant in my view is John 20.

What do you think? Does Wright have a point on John 20?

If you wish you may contact me directly at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

February 14, 2011

From a FB friend, now edited just a bit:

Thank you again for visiting our church in San Diego. Your talk was invaluable. Although I am in seminary, I am relatively new to the evangelical world (and the bible in general). Having always been a strong feminist, I was surprised to discover that much of the church culture (at large) left me feeling like I didn’t have a seat at the table (and that I had travelled in a time capsule back to the 1950s). As a never-been-married woman in my forties, I’ve been trying to sort out where I take my passion for the Word that hit me like cupid’s arrow a few years ago.

My seminary is a very pro-women seminary but your stories of stellar students leaving their initial vocational calling made me sad and I could identify on some levels.

So, thanks again. Men need to speak on these issues as much as (and if not more than women) because when women do, they can be viewed as being “over-emotional” about things…

Sincerely,

Name withheld

I spoke at Journey church in San Diego and had a Saturday morning session where I spoke about women in ministry from my book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible.

January 17, 2011

Alan Johnson, well-known and much-loved professor at Wheaton, has edited a collection of stories of well-known evangelicals who have in their own ways changed when it comes to women in ministry. His book has a great title: How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership: Compelling Stories from Prominent Evangelicals. Every person who is either “for” or “against” increased roles of women in leadership needs to read these stories. Before I get to the names and the stories, I want to sketch Dallas Willard’s introduction.

First a question: Who wants to tell a story about change? What were the “factors” that led you to shift your mind on women in ministry? What do you think of Dallas Willard’s three points?

Dallas Willard, in fact, didn’t change his mind because he always believed in the legitimacy of women in leadership in the church. He grew up in churches where both men and women taught — though the preaching pastors were male. Dallas thinks the passages used by the complementarians are not “principles” but expressions of the principle that all Christians should be all things to all people. (I don’t entirely agree with that term the term “complementarian” is accurate for those who use it since I think most everyone would want men and women to work together for the gospel in a complementarian way. More importantly, that term today means “hierachicalist in role.”)

Willard makes three points: (more…)

December 21, 2010

Nope, not the one in the backyard or on our feeder.

Instead, I’m happy to announce — and have been asked to announce — that The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible is now in paperback. For about a year it has been available only in clothbound in the USA (though in paper in other countries), so I’m happy to see this book made cheaper and therefore more accessible.

What’s the book about? It’s an introduction to how to read the Bible as Story, it gives the basics on how to “apply” the Bible — or, better yet, live the Story in our world, and about one third of the book makes the case for increasing women in ministry in our local churches. The big point I make about women in ministry, and this is designed for those who want to be biblical and not just fight this on the justice front, is that we need to ask this:

What did Women Do (in the Bible)? WDWD?

Do women do in your churches (at least) what they do in the Bible days? (Or, just how biblical is your church?)

October 15, 2009

We’ve had extensive conversations on this blog on the issue of women in ministry. The topic comprises the last third of Scot’s book The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible , and is at the root of many of the contemporary conflicts within our church, including those over tribal translations.  I generally stay on the periphery of these discussion because they always leave me feeling sick – and just a little dirty.

But this is an issue that we cannot avoid – not in the context of “Christian Virtue”: and not in the context of “Missional Campus Ministry.” One of the most potent criticisms of the church within the academy is directed at the view of women presented by some who purpose to speak for the church – for God – on this matter. As a Christian, a scientist, an academic, and a woman – I find this conflict particularly troubling.  I have been asked how I can be a thinking woman and a Christian much more often than I have been asked how I can be a scientist and a Christian.

Sayers.jpg

A few weeks ago Scot posted a series in Chris Armstrong’s book  Patron Saints for Postmoderns: Ten from the Past Who Speak to Our Future.  The final “saint” Armstrong highlighted was Dorothy Sayers, a woman many know as the author of the still popular Lord Peter Wimsey detective novels … but who also translated Dante and wrote on theology. Dorothy Sayers was an amazing woman, a trailblazer, and a great thinker. She was far from perfect – but that only makes her human.  Or does it?

There is a short volume Are Women Human? containing two essays by Sayers on this very topic.  Anyone who reads both this book and her novel Gaudy Night will immediately recognize the coherence of her overall view.

I am going to put up a few posts on this book over the next week or so, focused on some of  Sayers’ key points. Today  I would like to put forward a brief excerpt from this book and open the floor for discussion.

(more…)

August 18, 2009

BlueParakeet.jpgThis study guide, as noted at the bottom of the study, is from Barb Murphy, and I’m grateful for her efforts. Maybe this can be of use to you in using The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible

in your study group.

Thanks Barb.


(By the way, I get the kindest letters from folks who have read BP and I’m grateful for them.)

Chap 1:  The book and I

1.        Why did Scot tell us his personal story with the Bible?

2.         Do you have a personal story with the Bible?

3.         What was the big question that Scot discovered?

4.         Do you agree that we all “pick and choose”/ adopt and adapt the Bible to our culture?

5.         What did Scot learn about how we pick and choose?

6.         Why do we need to know the logic behind our picking and choosing?

(more…)

February 9, 2009

Last Thursday I was at the Evangelical Covenant Church’s Midwinter meetings where I conducted a day-long seminar on The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. That evening Kris and I were chatting about the session and about Cheryl Hatch, the person to whom we dedicated The Blue Parakeet.

I tell her story in the book, but let me mention a few points. Cheryl was a student of mine early in my teaching career, when I was a teacher at TEDS (Trinity Seminary). She was, in my judgment, one of the best students in that class: she was skilled with the Greek language, cared deeply about working painstakingly through the text and interacting with good scholars, and she wrote clear, engaging prose. Furthermore, she was a wonderful Christian with all kinds of experience with Campus Crusade. On top of this, she presented an admirable sermon at the end of the semester and I thought, “She’s set for a nice career as a pastor and preacher.” But Cheryl expressed to me privately her anxiety about receiving such a call and by the time she left TEDS, it was clear: she could have been “called” to churches as a women’s pastor or as a children’s pastor, but not as a teaching/preaching pastor.

(more…)


Browse Our Archives