That Familiar Voice

April 30, 2014 By Scot McKnight

There are a few songs that I associate with a male voice and some with a female voice such that if a male sings Hosanna I don’t think it is right. The voice gets connected to the song somehow. Preaching is like this for many, many of us. How so? Many think preaching requires a man’s voice because the only voice some have heard is a man’s. For the familiarized, then,when a woman preaches it “just doesn’t sound right.”

Church history has a voice, or a familiar set of voices, and they are mostly male voices. Think about evangelism, as I did two years back most of the year as I was reading famous evangelistic sermons, and we think of Wesley and Whitefield and Edwards and Finney and Moody and Sunday and Billy Graham. I suspect the facts would prove that most of the evangelism done in the history of the American church has been done by women — by moms and grandmothers and sisters and aunts and women who do women’s study and prayer groups and who form women’s associations for missionaries — but that’s not my point (and I can’t prove it anyway).

The point is this: Priscilla Pope-Levison has a marvelous, splendidly-written and thoroughly-researched book on the powerful influence of female evangelists in the Progressive Era (1890-1920), Building the Old-Time Religion: Women Evangelists in the Progressive Era (NYUP, 2014). The point within the point: most of the women she writes about are totally unknown and all but ignored even by the best of American church historians. Their voice is unfamiliar because other names are familiar. As I once put this problem, “Junia is Not Alone.” Pope-Levison’s book can help de-familiarize the male voice and re-familiarize us with the female voice. We need both, folks, always.

Pope-Levison’s concern, however, is not simply telling the story of unknown women (she did some of that in her previous book, Turn the Pulpit Loose). In this book she knows the reality of female evangelists and revivalists who travel from one church or venue to another leaving behind a trail of converts who often enough were not trained sufficiently. Instead, her new book Building the Old-Time Religion focuses on the institution building mission of leading women across the spectrum, though Priscilla has a speciality in the Methodist (or Holiness) movement. So, she focuses on four major institutions established by women whose stories are told honestly, candidly and accurately (and not hagiographically), and I begin with some of the names of the female evangelists but there are more and I can only mention a few of the various institutions established.

1. Evangelistic Organizations and the Women: She’s partial to Iva Durham Vennard; others include Martha Lee, Lucy Drake Osborn, Emma Ray, Alma White, Mary Lee Cagle, Evangeline Booth, Mattie Perry, Florence Louise Crawford and Aimee Semple McPherson. These women founded institutions: Apostolic Faith Mission (Crawford), Echo Park Evang Assoc (McPherson), et al.

2. Churches and Denominations: Elizabeth Baker — Elim Tabernacle; Virginia Moss — Beulah Hts Assembly; Alma White — Alma Temple, Zarephath Christian Church. McPherson established the Foursquare Gospel church.

3. Religious Training Schools: Mattie Perry — Elhanan Training Institute; Vennard — Epworth Evang Inst, Chicago Evang Inst/Vennard College; Alma White established several.

4. Rescue Homes and Rescue Missions: Booth and the Salvation Army; Emma Whitemore and Door of Hope; Elizabeth Baker and Faith Mission; Emma Ray and Hick’s Hollow Mission.

One motivating force for female-established institutions was opposition to the giftedness of women; another is that women got involved in teaching women (because that was OK) only for it to mushroom enough to become an institution. All in all, though, women had a colossal impact on the American church in the Progressive Era through their vision, administrative skill, giftedness in teaching and preaching and evangelizing, and through their substantial leadership abilities.

Three dominating conflicts in the churches of the Progressive Era emerge in her study:

The conflict over conversion: sudden or gradual?

The conflict over sanctification: entire or not?

The conflict over gender: to permit females full access or not?

Back to that familiar (male) voice. We need books about women and we need collections of stories about women so preachers and teachers and parents can tell stories about women. He who writes the story controls the glory; if “he” is a male, the story he tells is likely to be about males; it is time for the “he” of the storytelling tell some stories about women. Priscilla Pope-Levison’s book is one place to begin.

Also: C.A. Brekus, Strangers and Pilgrims: Female Preaching in America, 1740-1845.

Laceye C. Warner, Saving Women: Retrieving Evangelistic Theology and Practice.

Kirsi Stjerna, Women and the Reformation.

Weekly Meanderings, 12 April 2014

April 12, 2014 By Scot McKnight

On the first day when Sweden changed from driving on the left side (English style) to right side (everyone else).

Why can’t people spell it correctly? The word gospel: when it is one of the first four books of the New Testament, it is upper case: Gospel; when it is the message about Jesus, it is lower case: gospel. I see this mistake all the time. I have to wonder if editors and publishers even care.

Andy Holt thinks the World Vision incident revealed that we really do need a big tent evangelicalism:

Jesus had a big tent. The Samaritan woman had almost everything wrong about theology and the Scriptures, but there was room for her. Nicodemus had all the right answers, but was too afraid to openly follow Jesus until after the crucifixion. There was room for him. Martha was a Type A who knew what her place in life was, and there was room for her. Mary dared to sit at Jesus’ feet like one of the disciples – like one of the men – and there was room for her. James and John were audacious enough to ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left when he came in glory, and there was room for them. The lot didn’t fall to Barsabbas to replace Judas, but there was still room for him. There was room for Paul and Peter and Apollos and Junia and Priscilla and Timothy and Titus. There was room for the Roman centurion and for the confessing thief.

Jesus knew that throwing all of those people together, not to mention putting us into the mix as well, would create a volatile situation. They were all broken. They were all sinners. And the whole thing almost blew up because they had a hard time figuring out how to let Gentiles in. But by the grace of God it didn’t, and they all moved forward together.

Gotta love Tony Dungy:

As an All-American linebacker in college and a pro with the National Football League, Keith O’Neil was a champ at bringing down the other team’s players. He won a Super Bowl ring in his second season with the Indianapolis Colts, playing under celebrated coach Tony Dungy.
Blocking and tackling enormous athletes came naturally to him—but an opponent he couldn’t bring down lived inside his own mind. In fact, symptoms of his undiagnosed bipolar disorder kept him out of his first game with the team in September 2005.
“I was very excited to play for Coach Dungy and be part of such a great organization,” he says. “But the stress and change proved to be a very negative trigger for my mental health.”
For the most part, O’Neil tried to mask his debilitating fears and other issues. But as the Colts prepared for their season opener against the Baltimore Ravens, O’Neil realized he was in no shape to play.

“I’d gone four nights without sleep and I was frantic and desperate,” O’Neil recalls. “I finally went to Coach Dungy and said, ‘I need help.’”
The depth of caring, empathy, and emotional generosity with which the coach responded still amazes O’Neil. Over the years, the older man has become a source of hope, a mentor, and a role model.
“The only reason I’m able to talk about what I went through is because of Coach Dungy,” O’Neil says now.
At the time, O’Neil says, Dungy listened with his full attention, then pulled in the team doctor, trainer and general manager. The doctor prescribed medications to combat his anxiety and help him sleep.
O’Neil was able to join the Colts for their next game. Several weeks later, he was selected as a team captain.

Dungy’s intervention was just one instance of the helping hands that kept O’Neil moving forward and, ultimately, put him on the path to wellness.

Priscilla Pope-Levison’s interview on women evangelists:

CP: I know the bulk of your work is related to women, but what motivated you to pursue this particular area of women evangelists?

Pope-Levison: Well it began about 20 some years ago when I was teaching evangelism at Duke Divinity School and I was putting together an introductory lecture on the history of evangelism in the United States. What I could find were stacks of resources on particularly male evangelists, the great male evangelists beginning with Jonathan Edwards going through Charles Finney to Dwight Moody, all the way to Billy Graham.

Being a woman minister myself and interested in women’s religious leadership, I asked myself the question, ‘Were there any women evangelists beyond Kathryn Kuhlman and Aimee Semple Mcpherson?’ So that really started my research into an amazing amount of material and I feel like in some ways I’ve only scratched the surface after 20 years of research on an enormous amount of women who call themselves evangelists and traveled around the country. This book argues the thesis that they settled down and built institutions during the Progressive Era in our country, which was 1890 to 1920.

part two

Dave Moore on Pete Rollins:

Yesterday, I watched Peter Rollins describe his understanding of the Christian faith. Sadly, he loves to scrape and scrape so what was left hardly looked like Christianity. Frankly, his presentation bordered on incoherence.

Irony and mystery so dominated Rollins’ talk that you were left wondering what he really believes. In fact, Rollins admitted not being interested so much in what people believe, but why they believe it. Clearly, he falls prey to a tragic dichotomy as both the what and why of belief are important. This young scraper offered a few good and necessary push backs on the hubris of some Christians. Unfortunately, in the process of exposing some of these silly notions he seemed more than willing to discard some of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.

Karl Giberson:

“Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, one of America’s leading advocates, has just received one of America’s oldest and most prestigious awards—from the Roman Catholic Church….

Many consider Miller a paradoxical figure who occupies the thinly populated no-man’s land between science and religion, embracing both with enthusiasm and finding no conflict. He is a life-long practicing Catholic and accepts church teachings on salvation, the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus. He described himself in the PBS “Evolution” series as simply a “traditional” Catholic, one who has not had to abandon or distort his beliefs to accommodate his other passion: evolutionary biology. Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins describes Miller as an “incisive witness both to scientific acumen and religious belief.”

Consistent with most Catholic believers, and supported by official statements over the years from the Vatican, Miller embraces mainstream science with enthusiasm, accepting that the world is God’s creation. “I see the Creator’s plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe,” he wrote in a personal reflection about evolution. Miller sees the earth “bursting with evolutionary possibilities,” and understands God to be continuously creating with providentially ordered “design to life.” But—and here the salvos begin to be launched from conservative anti-evolutionists—he says “the name of the design is evolution.” Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis says Miller “appears to be blind” in his support for evolution, and unable to “distinguish between science and religious indoctrination.” The Discovery Institute has literally dozens of articles attacking Miller accusing him of everything from shoddy scholarship to duplicity.”

Chad Holtz on holiness and the progressives.

USA, Cuba and plotting to get rid of Castro:

U.S. scheming against Castro began almost immediately. In 1960, CIA agents contacted high-ranking mafia officials and discussed ways to assassinate Castro, perhaps by poisoning his food and drink. The assassin they chose and supplied, Juan Orta, reportedly got cold feet and abandoned the attempt. The agency’s next attempt to overthrow the Cuban regime was relatively conventional by CIA government-overthrow standards. Using Guatemala (whose own government had been toppled in a U.S.-sponsored coup in 1954) as a base of operations, U.S. spies organized, funded, armed, and trained a ragtag group of about 1,500 Cuban exiles, who planned to storm the Caribbean island and eventually topple the government. In April 1961, these exiles landed in Cuba’s Bay of Pigs and were defeated within three days by Cuban military forces, embarrassing the Kennedy administration and the CIA.

After the Bay of Pigs debacle, the CIA’s anti-Castro plots veered away from thetypical Cold War templates of coups and uprisings and into the realm of absurdity. One scheme involved somehow getting Castro to wear a poison-coated scuba-diving suit. Another, which also played upon Castro’s well-known love for diving, involved obtaining a beautiful seashell that would catch the Cuban dictator’s eye, only to explode when he reached for it. Perhaps the most famous proposal involved poisoning Castro’s iconic cigars.

What testing did to this teacher’s students.

Elizabeth Stoker, private charity vs. public welfare and the Christian faith:

The role of private charity versus that of state-sponsored social programs remains a hotly contested issue in right versus left politics, with the right wing typically favoring a heavy or total reliance upon private charity, and the left typically calling for a more robust emphasis on state-provided programs. What is often presumed, however, in this political discourse is that Christianity, like conservatism, requires a total reliance on private charity to deliver services to the needy. This could not be more wrong.

That “Women” Question (RJS)

January 30, 2014 By RJS

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.

Becoming Egalitarian in Greek Class

January 25, 2014 By Scot McKnight

Source

You’re in for a treat today as Meredith and her husband Curtis share the interesting story of how he came to hold his egalitarian position.

She said: I picked my seminary, in no small part, because it fully supported women in ministry. They had decided the issue long ago, and so I expected to experience a learning environment that responded to me as a unique person, not as my gender. This was indeed the case.

I studied theology in undergrad and went straight on to grad school. Eager for a change of pace, I decided to start with the Greek Intensive. It’s the only class you take for the quarter, which meant I could bank on three months without having to read a book or write a paper. As a bonus, it was capped at 25 people, and became a great way to make friends as a new student.

He said: I became an Egalitarian in Greek class. While for some people changing core theological positions between declensions might be common, this was a unique experience for me. Frankly, it wasn’t even Greek class itself that did it (sorry, Dr. Hill, I know you tried); it was someone I met in Greek class. She was as surprised as I was.

It was an intensive class: four hours per day, three days per week. We all saw a lot of each other, and got to know each other pretty well during class breaks. I got to know one person particularly well, but most of that is another story. (#MeetCuteInBiblicalGreek?)

The part of the story that matters for now began during one of our daily breaks. We had just discussed in class the fact that the passage starting in Ephesians 5:21 was all grammatically one piece, and should therefore be read together instead of being split apart as is often done by those who support strict gender roles. She asked what I thought about it all and I said I didn’t really know.

Weekly Meanderings, 21 December 2013

December 21, 2013 By Scot McKnight

Northern Seminary each year has a staff Christmas party, with a little bit of singing and eating and praying and congratulating … all wrapped up with nothing less than a leg-slappin’ riot of white elephant gifts, and here is none other than our OT prof, Claude Mariottini wearing some get-up he received as a gift.

The women of Advent — with Gail Wallace.

The borders in the Middle East and how we got them:

The map that the two men drew divided the land that had been under Ottoman rule since the early 16th Century into new countries – and relegated these political entities to two spheres of influence:

Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine under British influence

Syria and Lebanon under French influence

The two men were not mandated to redraw the borders of the Arab countries in North Africa, but the division of influence existed there as well, with Egypt under British rule, and France controlling the Maghreb….

The Sykes-Picot agreement is a secret understanding concluded in May 1916, during World War One, between Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire

The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France.

Skye Jethani on gay wedding cakes:

The expansion of same sex marriage certainly raises important religious liberty questions, but what saddens me is how little biblical or theological reflection by Christians I have heard online or on the airwaves in the wake of the court’s ruling. Instead I’ve encountered a torrent of conservative political cliches and anti-liberal talking points. “This is America,” one radio host said, “a business owner should be free to serve or not serve whomever he wishes.” Another Christian called the court ruling “an attack on our first and greatest freedom.” (I assume he was speaking of the First Amendment and not the freedom won for us by Christ’s death and resurrection.)

Agree or disagree with the politics of the ruling, Christians should not merely interpret the wedding cake case through the lens of the culture wars. We must consider how Scripture and Christian values would have us live beside our LGBT neighbors. Toward that end, I want to examine three objections raised by the wedding cake lawsuit.

Online rage and irresponsible comments, from The Atlantic: (HT: LNMM)

Liba Rubenstein of tumblr at the Silicon Valley Summit on Monday…. agreed that this worry is understandable, but she argued that good product design can alleviate some of this ragey-ness. She cited two aspects of tumblr‘s design that keep it from contributing to the Internet’s “engine for outrage.”

First, the company doesn’t allow a commenting free-for-all. “We don’t have traditional online commenting,” Rubenstein said. “Commenting was a cesspool of online exchanges—[it’s] the ability to dump on someone else’s content and walk away from it. If you’re going to participate in a conversation [on tumblr], that comment is going to follow you and broadcast to all of your followers. Not to say that there’s not vitriol on tumblr, but that’s product design that’s trying to encourage a more positive and responsible type of online exchange.”…

Rubenstein’s second explanation was far more thought-provoking. “By its nature, tumblr is less of an inherently immediate platform than some of the other social networks, and it’s a much better platform for archiving content. The lifecycle of a post on tumblr is very long: We actually see a whole lot of activity on popular posts a month or sometimes a year after posting. It’s not a thing that if you don’t come across it in your feed when it’s posted, it’s gone forever.”

Kate Tracy and who is perceived as more trustworthy:

In fact, recorded public trust in clergy has now reached an all-time low, with only 47 percent of Americans rating clergy highly on honesty and ethics (compared to 82 percent saying the same about nurses). The previous low since Gallup began asking the question in 1976: 50 percent in 2009.

However, clergy still ranked No. 7 out of the 22 professions studied. And confidence in the overall church as an institution improved over the past year.

CT reported the results of last year’s survey, when 52 percent rated clergy highly on honesty and ethics. This still placed clergy within the top half of all rated professions in 2012 (No. 8 out of 22). Confidence in clergy has stayed relatively stable over time: ranging from 61 percent in 1977 to a high of 67 percent in 1985, but has been consistently in the low 50s in recent years.

In 2013, Americans rated six professions more trustworthy than clergy: nurses, pharmacists, grade school teachers, medical doctors, military officers, and police officers. Meanwhile, engineers, dentists, and college teachers—three professions which surpassed clergy in 2012—dropped below clergy in 2013. (Grade school teachers and military officers rose above clergy from 2012 to 2013, while nurses, pharmacists, medical doctors, and police officers topped clergy in both years.)

However, clergy members were nowhere near the low rating of members of Congress, with only eight percent of Americans vouching for lawmakers’ trustworthiness. Congress ranked second to last behind lobbyists (6%), while car salespeople ranked ahead of both groups (9%).

Seven top stressors on pastors … worth your reading of the full post at the link.

Giving their families deserved time.

An unhappy spouse.

The glass house.

Lacking competencies in key areas.

Personal financial needs.

Responding to criticisms.

Lack of a confidant.

Was Paul the Eternal Enemy of Women?

August 26, 2013 By Scot McKnight

George Bernard Shaw, who had far more time for Jesus than the apostle Paul, said the apostle Paul came off as the “eternal enemy of Woman.” Before we test this proud claim of interpretation, let it be noted that GB Shaw was and is not alone. Many think Paul comes up short when it comes to women and many today would claim the church’s problems with women as equals to men derive from Paul, not Jesus. Todd Still, NT professor at Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor, subjects Shaw and the claim that Jesus were at odds on women to a test in Priscilla Papers (27/3, summer 2013, pp. 16-19).

Still opens with one text from Judaism, a disparaging-of-women text from Sirach 42:14 (“Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good”) and then to balance the religions budget grabs some horrendous expressions from Tertullian (“the devil’s gateway” and “vipers”). Then we get to Jesus. Still is soft shoeing here but the approach makes me a tad nervous, and it something you’ve seen on this blog before: to compare Jesus to Judaism (or to earliest Christianity) we are obliged to take in the bigger picture so as not to distort the comparison. Judaism, bad; Tertullian and early Christians, bad; Jesus, good; Jesus wins! Paul wins! We win!

OK, we can find disparaging texts all over the place, including Judaism and earliest Christianity. But there are also plenty of texts in which women are held in high esteem, and they deserve a place in this discussion right up front. Here’s the more dramatic conclusion many of us have drawn: nowhere is Jesus or Paul criticized for their approaches to women. That is, Jesus’ openness to women and Paul’s openness to women do not draw fire from their contemporaries. Why? Probably because their behaviors did not stand out as unusual. In other words, the Roman empire and Judaism had space for women to do the things they did with Jesus and with Paul. They may stand out over against some in the Jewish world and some in the Christian world, but those are perhaps minority voices and not majority voices. The fact remains: neither Jesus nor Paul are criticized for what they permitted women to do (at least in the evidence that survives).

Still points to Jesus regular inclusion of women in his circle, and nothing more substantive than the Mary and Martha text of Luke 10:38-42 or of women being primary witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

Paul, whom GB Shaw thought nothing more than a crank, shows up in Still’s sketch as providing some evidence of restrictions but plenty of evidence for unrestricted ministry opportunities. There’s some submission stuff and there’s the keep-silent stuff and Eve was deceived and it seems only men were elders.

Something quite important here that is rarely brought into the discussion: (1) Paul does not say only men can be elders; he speaks to elders assuming they are males. (2) He says the elders must be one-woman-men which implies males married to one woman. But, (3) the same could be said of “deacons” because there the assumption is males, too. But (4) we know Phoebe was a “deacon.” Therefore, (5) maybe we should soften the male-ness of elders under the clear exception of females being deacons alongside male deacons. Anyway, something to think about.

Still focuses on the women in ministry stuff: Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, women praying and prophesying. He concludes by arguing the restrictions of Paul are probably exceptions for specific circumstances. They are “occasional exceptions to this general rule” (19). They are “contextual, not continual” or a “chapter in a book, but not the entire story.”

For Still, Paul was with Jesus and neither was the enemy of women; both are friends of women.

Weekly Meanderings, 24 August 2013

August 24, 2013 By Scot McKnight

Bob Smietana, who got me blogging, is leaving The Tennessean: “He’s covered snake-handling preachers and mosque arson, lawbreaking charities and babies named Messiah. He’s introduced us to the guy who quit his job over 666 and the clergyman who says God doesn’t care if you smoke weed. And now I’m sad to announce that Bob Smietana will be leaving The Tennessean and taking his talents elsewhere. Bob has been our religion writer since 2007 and has been racking up awards all the way through – claiming first place just last month in the Tennessee Press Association contest for both feature writing (the snake handlers story) and best personal column, for his first-person account of his battle with diabetes. He has broken news both locally and nationally with his key connections on a passion-topic beat. He’ll be going across the railroad tracks to LifeWay, where he will be writing about research on church and cultural trends for Facts and Trends magazine. His last day with us will be Aug. 30. Please join me in wishing Bob well. We will miss him greatly. – Lisa Green”

Sarah Bessey does U-turn on Barbie dolls — good read.

Jon Merritt responds to Russ Moore: “These events and others led some Christian leaders to speak out against the increased sensitivity to transgender people. An article by Russell Moore at the “On Faith” forum hosted by The Washington Post, for example, argued that transgender people are essentially confused. He urged churches to teach that “our maleness and femaleness points us to an even deeper reality, to the unity and complementarity of Christ and the church.” Moore is someone for whom I have deep respect, and I appreciate his attempts to speak to this topic more compassionately than some of his Christian colleagues. Yet the issue seems to be more complicated than he and others are portraying.”

This is how the tide will turn, one woman at a time, with Nate Loucks: “Why is this so important to me? I believe that a healthy church should have a multitude of voices present; young and old, new converts and old guard, and male and female. While I have been out with Tumor Gate ’13 [herein effectively renamed Broncho-Pulmonary-palooza], other people in our community have filled in on Sunday to preach. This last week our community was privileged to have Becky Crain preach; our very own Christ-experiencing, Christ-representing, church-establishing, probably miracle-working, missionizing woman like Junia. We have also been fortunate to have Kristin Swartz-Schult preach in the past. In the future, we will be guided and taught by other capable Christ-loving and astute women. It’s important for our community to be shaped by men and women who love Christ. I am glad that we let our Junia’s speak in our community.”

How did those great writers work? Mark Twain, for an example: “Twain favored custom, leather-bound, tabbed notebooks, which he designed. He tore the tabs off each completed page in order to easily find the next blank one. His pen of choice was the Conklin Crescent Filler, especially since it was incapable of rolling off his desk. In the 1890s, Twain’s rheumatism made writing longhand painful. He experimented with using his left hand, but eventually began dictating his stories.”

Academic freedom, so this article contends, includes the option of saying No to invasive technologies: “I’ve called educational technology issues the “academic freedom crisis of the twenty-first century” because I think how faculty present information to students is just as important as what information they present. If administrators force us to use tools that prevent faculty from teaching what we want to teach as well as we can teach it, they don’t need to tell us what to teach in order to prevent us from getting our message out. If those tools can be used to replace faculty entirely, then even our content choices will become irrelevant because we won’t have anyone around to hear our message. So what bothers me most about this message is its very limited definition of what academic freedom is. I think academic freedom includes the freedom to say “No, I’m not interested in using that particular pedagogical tool.” Suppose you think your class is fine as it is. Suppose you don’t have time to learn the newest technological doo-dad. Suppose you don’t think that particular doo-dad is useful for your discipline. This kind of pressure from the top would then be most unwelcome.”

An architecture student converted a bus into a home — cool.

Are you a Margaret Atwood reader? Read this.

The Pope’s Jesus book reviewed intelligently in light of political theory.

And what is faith? Mark Stevens: “I’ve been mulling this over for quite a while. Being a conservative in a mostly liberal social active denomination can be hard. It is easy to judge a person based on their theology. But at the heart of it all what makes someone a Christian? Well, based on our text this morning and looking ta the Christian through the Jesus Creed may I make the following suggestions? Faith is not about believing the right things about Jesus, nor is about looking right, acting right or being right. It’s about believing in Jesus. It isn’t about what we believe; it is that our belief leads us into relationship with Him. And when we come to the table we identify ourselves as disciples, or friends, of Jesus! Our doctrine, our theology or anything like it does not open up a place at the table for us. We must hold our theology lightly and respectfully. There is a lot to comprehend about the Christian life. There is a lot to work out and even more importantly there is a whole lot of mystery we have to learn to live with. But none of this brings us to Jesus. None of this determines the centre of our belief. Jesus is the one (not an idea, not a concept) but the living Son of God) with whom we sit with and place our trust in.”

Textbooks cost too much.

Where do your child want to go to college? Read this by Mark Edmundson: “Where should you go to college–assuming you’re a high school student and getting ready for this new phase of your life? Where should you encourage your son or daughter to go–assuming that you’re a parent? As a college professor, I get asked the where-to-go question frequently, and I know that all of us teaching in colleges and universities do too. How should one answer? What is the right thing to say to someone deciding on his or her future? For myself, I’m inclined to respond by posing another question.

Are you looking for a corporate city, or are you looking for a scholarly enclave? Neither of these kinds of schools exists in its pure form. To the scholarly enclave, even the most ideal, there will always be a practical, businessy dimension. Somebody’s got to keep the books and pay the bills. And even in the most corporate of colleges, there will be islands of relative scholarly idealism.

Many, if not most, American high school students have already had a taste of the corporate city. These are students and parents who are emerging from the mouth of that great American dragon called the “good high school.” I won’t hide my prejudices: I have a lot of qualms about the good American high school. Most good high schools now look to me like credential factories. They are production centers that kids check in to every day. The motivated, success- oriented students set to work from the moment of arrival, producing something, manufacturing something. And what they produce are credentials. High schools now are credential factories in overdrive.” (HT: LNMM)

Evangelicals Reading Genesis 1-2

August 7, 2013 By Scot McKnight

That someone like RJS, a fellow blogger here at Jesus Creed, can discuss Bible and science on most Tuesdays and Thursdays, which often enough returns to Genesis 1–2, routinely and still generate conversation after conversation of interest reveals the significance of this topic among many Christians, especially evangelicals. As indicated, the conversation ends up discussion Genesis 1–2, the creation of Adam and Eve, the historical Adam and Eve, and how theology flows out of a historical Adam/Eve or if it can flow from a less than historical Adam/Eve.

Why do all discussions of science and faith come back to Adam (and Eve)? Do you think those who say there “must” be a historical Adam and Eve are putting themselves into losing posture? Do you think those who say Adam and Eve “couldn’t have been” the original humans deny the essence of the Christian message?

An observation: We often speak of a historical Adam and forget Eve, but this must be corrected as often as appropriate — as Junia was silenced, as women in the history of the church have been silenced (see my Junia is Not Alone), so Eve gets silenced by colonizing here into the word “Adam.” Let’s do this better.

Anyway, that’s not the point of this post, which is to begin a series on J. Daryl Charles (ed.), Reading Genesis 1–2: An Evangelical Conversation. There are now (at least) five views of how to read Genesis 1–2 among evangelicals, which is a bit of a message in itself, and this book opens with Richard Averbeck’s reading of Genesis 1–2. (Chps are written by Averbeck, Beall, Collins, Longman, and Walton.)

Some highlights: he offers a literary reading of Genesis 1–2 with occasional ventures into “this must be historical” but which a times takes a literary reading instead of a literal reading, and frankly there’s not a theoretical discussion of how to know when and when not to do such a thing … and I guess that’s OK since that would lead to a much, much longer chapter. Some conclusions:

1. Genesis 1:1 is the title and not the first act of creation.
2. He reads Genesis 1–2 in the context of Ancient Near East (ANE) texts and also in consort with Psalm 104.
3. His approach modifies the “framework hypothesis” (never defined), but refers to Days 1-3 being filled in Days 4-6. The framework theory is often opposed by the more “literalistic” readings (vs. literary readings).
4. Genesis 1–2 corresponds to observational realities of ancient peoples, so that the language speaks analogically (how one knows it is analogy is up for debate) of material, earthy, cosmic realities in the way they perceive those realities.
5. The 7-day week is not literal but literary, and is an analogy to the human 7-day week.
6. The point of the text is to inform Israel that God is the one true Creator who created all, including humans, and that the earth is like a temple in which God has placed Adam and Eve to rule on God’s behalf.
7. There was a real, historical Adam and Eve.
8. Beall and Collins mostly affirm him; Longman and Walton push back, increasingly so.

Averbeck’s study is nuanced, more than I can give here, but there is a tension for me in a literary approach that gets literal/historical/physical at times and at other times suspends the literal and historical for the literary. He does not privilege science; he may disprivilege it in two ways: by not bringing in the science of origins, including scholarship screaming for attention here, and by then claiming historical (that is, ultimately, scientific) conclusions that do not square with modern science. In general it seems he has a bit of a separate magisteria approach with occasional claims of a traditionalist nature.

Thoughts from a Pastor’s Husband

July 19, 2013 By Scot McKnight

This week our From the Shepherd’s Nook post is by Chuck Shirey, husband of pastor-teacher Alice Shirey (about whom I say a few things in my Junia Is Not Alone).

Thoughts from a pastor’s husband…

Most would not consider ours to be a typical pastor’s family. My wife is not a typical pastor, and I don’t just say that because I think she is extraordinary. It is just true. Both of us went to seminary; she has an MA and I am the one with an M.Div. But calling doesn’t always follow education. I happily work in the financial industry, and at age 35 while running a small business and raising 3 kids, Alice learned she had the gift of teaching. So fourteen years ago she entered her career as a teaching pastor serving the first seven of those as a lay teacher.

So, I don’t speak for every pastor’s husband. At the same time, I wonder how many pastors’ husbands feel atypical.

Here is some of what we have learned over the last fourteen years:

1.) One of the most powerful ways I can support her is to honor her call. It is good to rejoice in each other’s giftedness. I am thrilled that my wife has the gift of teaching and that our church recognizes, uses, and honors that gift. I learn from her and am challenged by her teaching. I love to talk to her about what I am learning, about how God uses her gift to teach me, and about how grateful I am she is stepping fully into the gifts God has given to her. The most powerful thing a pastor’s husband can do is drop his ego and cheer his wife on!

2.) I recognize how invigorating but also draining Sunday morning is for her. Many Sundays she will have preached 3 back-to-back services often for over 1,000 people, while other Sundays she has to press the speed limit to get from one rural venue to the next for overlapping worship services. Her particular teaching style, though steeped in research, prayer, and study, is also personal and full of honest stories about our life, her life, and very often, her struggles and failures. It didn’t take long to realize that she is spent when she finally arrives home. For many, Sunday is a day of rest, but not for teaching pastors. Their heart has been on their sleeve all morning and is often a bit battered at the end of the run. She gets responses across the spectrum from being a 65 year old man’s favorite teacher to having visitors walk out because they did not expect or believe in the validity of a female preacher. A freshly prepared omelet, virgin Sunday newspapers, and a turned down bed seem to be the least I can offer. These simple gifts are often met with a weary and very grateful smile. When the kids were young, they joined in this process and knew that mom was “off the grid” for the rest of the afternoon.

3.) We intentionally see ourselves as a partnership – in life, in work, in parenting and in ministry. This is how we work best and how we avoid competition or a division between sacred and secular. Her work makes my work more meaningful, yet I also love to help her edit her teachings. I love talking with her about what she is learning and adding my ideas or perspective or questions. She often tells me that she would not be able to do what she does without my support. She engages me in theological conversation and honors my “I don’t work in the church” opinions. She feels free to tell me when she receives accolades or great feedback from congregants, and just as free to tell me when she is criticized or her gift is questioned due to her gender. This creates fierce discussion in our home, as you can imagine.

Mutual support, sacrifice, and engagement in each other’s lives are how we attempt to honor God and one another. I am her biggest fan though our dog is a close second!

The Question for Churches

June 5, 2013 By Scot McKnight

From Laura Ortberg Turner:

Women make up only 10 percent of senior pastors and are paid less than their male counterparts, according to a 2009 Barna study. The figures are even lower among evangelical churches. At a time when women are making great strides in other areas—advancing in higher education, heading up a record number of Fortune 500 companies, and gaining influence in government—why is the church lagging so far behind? And what are the obstacles that restrict women from understanding and using their gifts on behalf of the Body of Christ?

Anecdotally, we can probably all list the reasons. Women find themselves reluctant to stand up in lead in an environment where we’re not encouraged (or even discouraged) to do so. We are taught that church leadership roles are reserved for men; we grow up hearing that it isn’t polite for us to express our opinions; we are still told, at least implicitly, that our place is in the home, with the kids, the cooking, and the Pinterest crafts.

But is there a place for women at the table? If a woman possesses the spiritual gifts of teaching or leadership, would it be best for her to ignore them so that men can take their place? Paul’s writings in Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 12 have a great deal to say—which might be surprising, considering the bad rap Paul gets when it comes to women’s roles in the church.

I’m glad to see CT routinely take this up at the Her.meneutics blog, and I’m especially glad to see young leaders like Laura put her able pen to the task. I wrote on this in two settings — Blue Parakeet and Junia is Not Alone. And I’m teaching a course, starting June 17 at Northern on women in ministry … why? Because some refuse to listen to the reality of God’s gifting of women. We must turn the argument over. For years we’ve put up with the traditionalists accusing us of not believing the Bible. We need a change: it is the person who denies women leadership, to teach and to preach, that goes against the grain of what the Bible teaches. It is that view that is unbiblical.

There is but one question to ask: Do women in your church do what women in the Bible did? Or, ask it another way: What did women do? WDWD? Hey, make that a bracelet.