Intellectuelle   Feminism

We Are Not Asking To "Remake" Christianity

Something that parts of Christianity has borrowed from the surrounding relativistic society is an idea that we are creating the expression of Christ in the world in an evolutionary way. I cannot emphasize enough that if one tweaks and twists the Christian faith to accomodate the culture's views, or individual's preferences, at some point what results is a set of beliefs that are something, but no longer Christianity. That is why I am not suggesting that we brainstorm a new view.

What is suggested here is the fresh look at the original truths, and that we stop trying to elaborate on those with our own traditions and teachings.

This would result in changes in the Churches... and possibly our world.

We Do Want To Define

�Where words are many, sin is not absent; but he who holds his tongue is wise.�

This is, I admit, a strange quote to choose as an opening for a post about submission. But I want to keep it in mind as I write. I am conscious that I am young; that my theology is developing; that I�ve already embarrassed myself enough in the past by trying to �educate� others with my great wisdom. So, my wish is that you would take my thoughts as reflecting where I am now in my journey to understand the Scripture�not as a rant against any who might disagree with me or an attempt to conjure up some kind of conspiracy theory.

Now, with those disclaimers in place, I want to go to Ephesians 5: 21-22. In most of your Bibles, you will find a heading �Husbands and Wives� dividing verse 21 and 22. And verse 22, of course, is usually translated like this: �Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� The Greek there is not difficult or ambiguous. The way most English translations render it is good enough. Well, except for one thing. There is no verb �submit� in the Greek "wives {submit} to your husbands. " This is not a matter (like the ending of Mark) where scholars debate whether or not the word is actually in the original texts. Everyone is in perfect agreement that the word �submit� is not in verse 22. Translated literally, the Greek says, �Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord.�

Because of the comments, I wanted to view the choices for women in the Church against the historical background and present circumstance.

Atlantic, commenting on the stance of the Catholic Church said this,"the issue of women priests: for the Church�s faithful, the case is completely closed," and "the Church is the only body that has been given the authority to determine who may be ordained a bishop at all." Logically, this is the correct stance to take when one considers themselves Catholic, in my view. I'll tell you why I think that Atlantic has articulated the proper stance for a Roman Catholic woman. The Church has already gone through one Reformation time, on points much more essential than whether women should hold particular positions of leadership. Bloody wars have been fought because at that time the temporal powers and the determination of the Church were united. It was similar to Shari'a law in my estimation. The theology could rule whether you lived or died in this earthly existance. This is no longer the case in Christian-majority countries.

I find myself distanced from some of the dispute because in my Church milieu women are given full access and free rein to participate in Church life and leadership. Officially. The de facto situation is that none of us are truly separate from one another in the body of Christ, and prevailing attitude will ripple against the shores of our own situation.

Yet, in the Protestant experience, there is a wide range of choices in bodies that have already worked through the questions on whether women may preach and teach or have input in the decision process.

So in our convictions, if we have settled that our specific Church policy is scripturally mistaken, what is the right pathway to take? Do we stay and protest, seeking change, or do we move to a congregation that has already settled on this issue? Our motivations will have to undergo critical review if we decide we take issue with our Church's conviction.

- summing up my own view
...touching on woman pastors, parachurch alternatives, and double standard choices.

The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate
by Kevin Giles

Upon discussion with my pastor about where our church stands on the gender debate, I was lent this book, 'The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate' by Kevin Giles. Not as representative, necessarily, but as something that digs into the theology of the debate. And that, friends, is definitely what this book attempts to do.

I would categorize the book's framework as tri-partite in format covering three related issues: (1) Theology of the Trinity, (2) Women, subordinate or equal?, and (3) Slavery, as Church theology has dealt with it and how it relates to gender theology. It uses a two-pronged approach to the arguments, one based within the Athanasian formula of "overview" exegesis and the second based upon the idea of cultural change requiring scriptural interpretation change, or what I term an "evolutionary" view of interpreting scripture. This two-pronged approach was submitted early on, in the introduction, but it wasn't until the final chapters which dealt with Slavery, that I understood better how Giles explains his application of the evolutionary, or cultural, form of argument. I still felt it was the much weaker manner of arguing the issues, especially for someone like me. And I basically disagreed with the premise, but additionally, I felt Giles took a facile manner of dealing with this form, as if it was self-evident truth. I would debate that, but in the further development of his ideas I could see a platform of agreement in the argument that as time progresses more of God's intent is unfolded, and gives greater understanding. Rather than an unvarnished promotion of "things are different now, and that forces us to re-interpret scripture" which is how I tended to read his line of thinking earlier in his formation of the presentation.

But in commenting further upon these two ways of arguing hermeneutics, I believe Athanasius' formula of "overview" is best for dealing with application of scripture to society's dilemmas. If following the watershed path of theological outcomes in society, strict protocols constraining women leads to a society in variance with Bible principles of freedom and equality. Handling those principles will be key in unlocking the correct approach to understanding God's Word on women.

Giles view on "cultural" evolution and force is very weak, not usable 'as is', since it depends on relativism.The idea that Christian principle once accepted within general society results in a juggernaut which cracks open wrong thinking and exposes injustice is plausible, but believing that society moves along as a force in itself, self-propelled without a cause for the ideas source? I believe in cause and effect, and so cannot embrace this culture evolution, as stated. It is framed as a theory that culture so changes that old ideas don't fit or hold up to present understanding, and thus "forces" a change in the Church and its hermeneutics.

I think that cultural acceptance of a high view of equality and of women requires an "overview" -principle approach to theology which then is caught by other streams of thought in the culture. To see culture as a power in itself, ie the Enlightenment, giving rise to our freedoms and forcing scripture interpretation to change is basically faulty. I immediately thought of Rousseau's ideas as expressed in the Unibomber's thinking. In his manifesto his view that man is a "beautiful savage" who only needs to be set free from the corruption of society's constructs to return to his primitive paradise. This holds a premise of man's basic goodness, that evil is imposed upon him. An idea wrecking havoc in our present society. The scriptures view of depravity posits another scenario: that if you destroy the institutions of society with its constructs of civility and law, you leave man helpless and exposed to the worst criminal elements, and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of nature. This all argues that culture is the cart that the horse of philosophy carries to its destiny. The question will remain, what is the basic driving nature of philosophy upon which our carriage of society is riding? What is in control of the basic ideas of the philosophy? Essentially that will boil down to our ideas of God.

There are those who don't see the pertinance of how the Trinity question of subordination versus equality relates to the gender questions. I think the idea that ones understanding of God influences ones understanding of the formation and direction of society is set forth in that previous paragraph. Additionally, the nature of the Trinity is used as an argument within the reasonings of the theological debate itself.

The subject matter is weighty when a books emphasis is theology, as might be expected. It isn't light summer reading on the beach. Since the first part of the book, the concept of the Trinity, dealt primarily with theological terms, history, and study, it took much attention and concentration from a reader, such as I am, who does not ordinarily study uncut theology. Besides the fact that the Trinity is a difficult topic for the best of theologians! Giles handled it well, and thoroughly. Of course, I am biased towards the Athanusian "overview", which I call "principle", exegesis for the truly thorny doctrinal arguments, which Giles submitted with overwhelming rationale. This portion was just my cup of tea, well laced with historical references and well written in almost a story form. Not at all dry.

As the book,'The Trinity & Subordinationism', progresses it becomes clear that Giles is arguing the egalitarian side of the gender debate, although I wasn't sure until he expressed it more clearly half way through the book. This is probably due to the careful submission of the two sides, egalitarian and hierarchal views. (Although he does use a rebuttal style, which tips his hand, whenever dealing with the hierarchal-subordination based books such as Piper's 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism'.) By the end of the book Giles is quite forthright in his conviction of the egalitarian stance.

I will admit that I have been moving more strongly in that direction, not particularly from reading this book so much as examining the questions, but Giles weak 'culture arguments' did the egalitarian stance no favors in my estimation. I think that is just the bias of those who hold to primarily egalitarian theological views holding sway. They think it wipes away the oppositional view of hierarchal subordination. I don't agree, and hope to submit my own ideas on where hierarchy fits with a strongly egalitarian view of women. But this book introduced a side of the issue which many of us categorize separately: slavery, which sheds some light on how blindsided the Church can become from its saturation with the presuppostions of the society.

Giles doesn't spend alot of time on this, but what time there is is well spent making the case for how deluded even the best theologians often were on this issue. I think the history on this and the woman issues was the most enlightening for me. To pay attention to the actual theology of past times when there were still serious arguments about the humanity of people upon the basis of their gender and race. We shouldn't forget, and should appreciate how far we have come on some of these social issues. It is both discouraging and encouraging. That the church could promote some of the ideas it has- discouraging.... that it was instrumental in getting on the right side of the issues- encouraging.

I want to further discuss some of the points made in the sections of the debate, so some of my posts may seem like an extension of this review. I think the book is an important one, and lifts the gender discussion to the higher level it needs, outside the emotional mudpit it is often found in.

(Crossposted @ TrueGrit)

I leave the debate over what constitutes civilities to others... I have no real comments on the Ted Haggard issue, primarily because I believe we are not over the worst of such yet. I think lots more exposure of the church, its leaders and methods, is awaiting us. There will plenty to blog about -especially as we go into the next presidential campaign in earnest. So, in this time, and for this purpose, I want to resume looking at fundamental ideas and views we have which tend to articulate our direction in the culture,and as a culture. Our views of women, our ideals of egalitarianism.

What we think will determine how we act, and the degree of clarity we have will impact our ability to fend off manipulation that is a part of moving large groups to go in specific directions. In other words, the better handle we have on what and how we think the more likely that we act, as individuals and citizens, and saints, in concordance with our core beliefs.

So, in the service of that goal, a look at and discussion of some points in an article that was published 3/29/2006:
"Culture wars: Beware of presuming sameness" by Jonathan Zimmerman.

I haven't had time for very much recreational reading in this part of my life, so I seek to spend time with the essentials, as I decide them. The issue of women roles as viewed by the Church is one I wouldn't have judged as essential in earlier times in my life...but I have lived a little, and it now seems a matter that has a good deal of prominance in my thinking. I don't seem to be able to avoid examining the arguments on it any more. I believe because it touches on many of the essential parts of living our lives with purpose and meaning. The apostle Paul speaks of engaging lifes actions as a fighter in the ring- to lay punches purposefully and for full impact, not like some wimp flailing the air, doomed to a knockout.

1 Corinthians 9:
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

So, for many women who want to sincerely follow Christ, and hear "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" as much as the men do... it is vital that we get a handle on what the Bible says concerning us and our roles. Related to that, is our witness to a desperate world. We have to be able to properly articulate our faith- not simply in words, but in the way we live, our choices and realities. In that spirit, I present you this:
Adrian Warnock's blog has one the more important series of thoughts on this. He does an interview with Wayne Grudem, in four parts, which covers most of the important points on the issues at hand in the gender discussion.

I hope you will read it all. It isn't a series of posts that one can give slap-dash analysis on, and Christmas season does not lend itself to long periods of time on the computer, but I hope to relay some some thoughts on points that were made in the egalitaian vs. the hierarchal sides of the discussion. Wayne Grudem appears to be firmly in the hierarchal complementarian camp, and I hope to read through the online pdf files found @ Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth Online..

Interested in joining me in this?

Up to this time I mostly have dealt with ideas of women, their roles, etc. in terms of the Church. But I read this post tonight,and I wanted to bring it here for discussion. What about the new double standard described by Cassandra? Read the entire article for much more to talk about. I'm sure we will make our way back to the issues of women in the Church along the way. This is an extremely interesting view of gender and its crisis in the culture, IMHO.

Villainous Company: A Question Of Balance

The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

Marine Corps training doesn't crush thumos. It finds a proper outlet for that energy and aggression and channels them. And it's no accident that a warrior culture is a highly structured and disciplined one beset with rules and regulations. Only in such a well regulated environment can so many highly charged individuals get along without killing each other. They co-exist peacefully because they willingly submit to authority and yet few, looking at a base full of Marines, would describe them as wimpy or feminized. This is why society bids men shave, wear neckties, and follow seemingly meaningless social conventions. These things are symbols; tokens of conformity - a voluntary willingness to submit to the often capricious dictates of the social contract; to harness that boundless energy and aggression in service to something larger than themselves. Yet, in just the last few decades a fairly remarkable thing has happened.

Women, whose similarly bridled femininity had been tightly constrained by a stifling set of societal mores, discovered feminism. And suddenly all bets were off.

Now, in the workplace and in the home both men and women are getting mixed messages. In many offices men are still being told they must wear ties and watch their language for signs of sexist thoughts or pronouns. Yet when I open up a fashion magazine, I see women who are definitely not typing pool material wearing low cut tops and extremely short or revealing skirts to the office. Years ago, such attire would have violated any number of office dress codes, not to mention torpedoing ones chances of promotion. Now such unbridled feminine sexuality in the workplace is considered "sophisticated". What kind of message is that sending to men: "Here I am, but don't you dare notice me as a sexual being because if you do, you're objectifying me?" O-kay.

Yes, we are going to talk gender issues, again. If you remember I had to end -rather unsatisfactorily I might add- with recognizing that there is a present hierarchy. The only thing that separated my conclusion from complementarians is that I insist that there is something more than what is generally served up as male-female roles and what women can expect in the Church life.

Someone else was taking up the conversation circa January of this year, and voiced what is probably the biggest sticking point for me, and many others. Molly of "adventures in mercy" said It’s not Male Rule, but Rather HOW the Male Ought to Rule.

In reading Fruit in Season, I came across this:

"In 'Having a Mary Heart in a Martha World', Joanna Weaver digs deeply into this topic of balance.

While there are many things that need to be done, things I'm capable of doing and want to do, I am not always the one to do them. Even if I have a burden for a certain need or project, my interest or concern is not a surefire sign that I need to be in charge. God may only be calling me to pray that the right person will rise up to accomplish it. What's more, I may be stealing someone else's blessing when I assume I must do it all.

..and then a collection of the hopes of one woman's desire to minister. I identified. I also was a little saddened. Saddened, because this is a real inner conflict for many of us women who see the needs and desire to minister to them; who live in a confused cultural melange of messages of who we are.

It reminded me of how much ministry is taken on by women, and especially women in the midst of their reproductive years in the full flush of family life. This is something that I think is off balance in our view of life and in our church life. It is something that you most often find in the "Traditional" role types of churches, as well. I don't understand the willingness to encourage women to work in this way while at the same time preaching a message of "Women are to be silent", or some sort of truncated and arbitrary idea about when women can or cannot minister in a leadership role. Is the area of leadership the issue or the role of leadership?

This might sound more like a rant than an observation, but where is the logical balance on this if we don't question and seek the answer in the scriptures and instead run around in frustrated continuation of what we are used to? ... A mistaken Martha at best, a stubborn Pharisee at worst.

At this rate you will lose sight of the fact that I am very conservative in my own lifestyle and thinking, but I feel driven to explore this question and all aspects of it.

Why don't you read this, "Interview with Bonnie Wurzbacher, Vice President for Coca-Cola
Where Are the Women Leaders? By Nancy Lovell" it has a number of things to think about. Here are a few I would pick out as worthy of discussion:

My second passion is helping others, especially women, identify and use their gifts and talents in significant ways. Women are fully half of the professional workforce in Fortune 500 companies. Yet those percentages reflect in few leadership roles—not just in corporate America but in churches, in politics, and in many other fields, we are not fully benefiting from the talents of women. If 50 percent of the professional workforce is women, why aren't 50 percent of the leaders women? That has a multi-faceted answer; but in large part it is a talent development failure. I believe this failure is evident in many churches as well.

I've read that 50 percent of Christians have never heard a sermon on work and 70 percent have no theology of work. I believe many churches are irrelevant when it comes to work issues or how to integrate faith and work. ...Nancy Pearcy in her book Total Truth talks about how many people separate their worlds between their personal values and belief systems and their professional lives—the world of science, economics, and facts. Christians tend to do that too. We're not taught to view our vocations as a meaningful way to honor and serve God, or how to articulate a rational, compelling case for our faith, so we keep our faith private. I believe churches need to teach their congregations how to integrate faith and work—how to bring meaning to their work.

This came via Sarah Flashing of Flash Point who had her own opinion that got me thinking....

...challenging us with the fact that there are women entering into professions and few mentors to guide them. Everything matters to God, and women entering the workforce are as much in need of mentors as are women who choose to remain at home and raise families. Almost every time I speak somewhere, I find myself asking, where are the young women? I'm not sure how well traditional women's ministry is ministering to young women......I think we're in the midst of a paradigm shift. What do you think?

For conversation and commentary on modern Christian womanhood, visit true womanhood in the new millenium and Gifted for Leadership, two group blogs for women.

True Womanhood's stated purpose:

The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love her neighbor as herself. She is gifted by God with amazing and unique gifts and she is empowered by the Holy Spirit to use those gifts for His glory alone. As this true woman commits herself to the Word of God, she eschews the man-made stereotypes given to her in the past and delights in God’s distinctive calling on her life in her home, in the church, and in the world.

Gifted for Leadership is under the auspices of Christianity Today International and features an impressive lineup of writers (by profession) including Carla Barnhill, Carolyn Custis-James, and Lauren Winner. Check them out.

(Since one of my favorite bloggers, retired professor Martin LaBar, linked to one of my posts and mentioned that it wasn’t about sex, I thought I’d better get with the program ;-) )

(Warning: frank language ahead)

Joe Carter links to Challies, who writes about Naomi Wolf’s article in New York Magazine, The Porn Myth, which first appeared in 2003. Wolf, a third-wave feminist,* explains how "The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women," and says this ultimately weakens the family. (No, this isn't Focus on the Family talking, this is a feminist!) Other cultures, Wolf says -- traditional cultures, even -- know this about sexual ubiquity. She even quotes from Proverbs 5:18-19: "Rejoice in the wife of your youth...let her breasts satisfy you at all times."

Wolf also says something rather modern about orgasm and Pavlovian response:

After all, pornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it.

I wonder if she’s read Eros Defiled by John White, published in 1977. In it, he discusses Pavlov’s dogs and reward as a powerful operant conditioner, which I mentioned in Part II of my “Learning to speak the language” (of sex) series.

In Eros Defiled, John White suggests that our sexual attitudes and practices get “set” by the same mechanism that caused Pavlov’s dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell: habit, and association with pleasure (pp. 40-42). Orgasm, being a very intense physical, mental, and emotional pleasure, is no doubt a strong behavioral reinforcer that helps establish both healthy and unhealthy sexual patterns. Yet as Lauren Winner suggests in Real Sex, discipline of the body, mind, and heart can help guide the creation of healthy patterns and provide a positive kind of positive reinforcement.

While I believe, as does White, that human behavior is based upon more than mere physical conditioning such as that experienced by rats or dogs, at the same time, humans are clearly also conditioned via thought and (especially) emotion. There really is no escaping this. These features of human conditioning shape our disciplines and our habits, which in turn shape us. However, before that, it is our will, and our spiritual state, which shape our thoughts and emotions.

As for dilution (see end of Wolf quote above), I mentioned this in one of my pieces on masturbation at my old blog, Off the Top, a couple years ago:

This is a repost from Flash Point, but its very fresh and want to bring as many minds into this very worthy project.

I have been pondering for some time the relationship between women, worldview, ministry, and career. Probably because being a woman myself and wanting to serve the church - serve God - according to my areas of giftedness - I have been left to wonder if young women today are struggling with where they fit in the grand scheme. Not all women are called to or are necessarily drawn to marriage and motherhood at an early age. Today, this record-size Y generation has more educational pursuits and career desires than previous generations. At the same time, there are few positions of leadership that women can pursue in the church and - from my perspective - the academy isn't much different. But I firmly believe that with a solid understanding of what it means to hold a Christian worldview will prepare women to as they enter the early season of adulthood. Knowing that each of us was created to live on earth, we can seek careers that may not necessarily be ministry-proper, but know that they serve a role in God's larger plan and that each of us are called to do our work to the glory of God. In light of this understanding of work, worldview and women, I hope you find yourself curious at the prospect of a young Christian women's leadership conference that will equip women leaders in a variety of professions and callings while at the same time learning to engage our culture. Nothing like this exists for young women in the Christian community, but it should. If you have any interest, drop me a note or comment here on the blog.

An interesting offering from Reasoned Audacity. Thoughts on how to relate American Matriarchy and Robespierre.

Yoest links to Atkinson's 'Looming American Matriarchy' and highlights the view of certain convictions as "ideology", defined as: "it incorporates a political agenda which makes it impervious to empirical evidence". I might connect that with the new connotations of fanaticism.

The article is interesting and on point as it sticks closely to the topic at hand: recent hamhanded institution of feminist/diversity ethics in the military. However, one needs to handle these topics gingerly as they are prone to equivocation, the swapping in and out of words and ideologies which are similar in sound, only, not basis.

If we talk about Matriarchy...especially as a divergent system, we are beginning to buy into a system that pits female and male against each other in a contest of will and position. This is not thinking that is "complementarian", but a mirror image of the eschewed "Feminism". Simply "Anti-feminism", and subject to all the abuses of ideology gone rampantly wrong.

This polarity is very seductive, especially within the highly charged political environment of changing power balances, of the type seen in Nixon years and those we are moving into at this time.

Why did I feel the need to insert this little caveat? The image on the linked site. It is an unfortunate choice ...which plays up all the fears of past injustices and excesses.

From Salvo magazine, an interview with post-feminist Carrie Lukas by Bernard Chapin. Bravo to Lukas for her courage to be honest, to embrace the truth about some of feminism’s most cherished notions, and to be a myth-buster! In her book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, she addresses “The Myth of Having it All":

Certainly much of the culture creates unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement. But the problem women face is that we often have conflicting desires.

...Often, “women’s studies” classes and groups like NOW make it seem as though the problem women face in balancing work and family is caused by bad public policy or men who won’t do their share of the housework. But the real problem is simply a consequence of being human: We can’t be two places at once, and there are only 24 hours in a day. This means that we are going to face tough decisions and real tradeoffs when allocating our time.

On women and independence:

They [groups like NOW] want to free women from having to depend on voluntary relationships—families and husbands—but want Uncle Sam to take care of them...Simply put, they want the government to control more and individuals to control less. That’s really not independence.

Thank you, Ms. Lukas!

Talk about losing one's appetite...

The movie Kill Bill introduced me to "naked sushi" for the first time. I naively thought, "well, they sure were creative to think of that for the movie, however nauseating it is. Barf." That is, I didn't realize that they actually do this naked sushi thing in Japanese sushi restaurants. Now, some sushi bars on the west coast are featuring naked sushi as well. Mercy.

I cannot think of a finer example of the objectifying of women than to use them as plates.

I am starting a series of posts to discuss arguments being presented by prominent figures in the church today on the topic of manhood and womanhood.  I believe that there is great need for more conversation, not that there hasn’t been a plethora already.  But I have seen little that rings absolutely true, and have yet to find a prevalent model that I can wholeheartedly support.  I am not, I repeat, not, trying to set myself up as an authority.  I aim to think through some things and offer my thoughts for whatever they may be worth.  (If I can’t do that, I might as well quit blogging, or writing and speaking altogether.)  I aim to discern, not to judge.  So I ask that whoever reads what I write consider the truth or falsehood of my claims merely for what they are.    

So in the end, this whole controversy is really about God and how His character is reflected in the beauty and excellence of manhood and womanhood as He created it.  Will we glorify God through manhood and womanhood lived according to His Word?  Or will we deny His Word and give in to the pressures of modern culture?  That is the choice we have to make.

I do not know the context from which this quote is taken, but, as it stands alone on the homepage of the CBMW, I will address it as such. 

In my view, the controversy is not about God and His character as expressed in gender-specific ways; it is about the ways in which men and women see fit to understand manhood and womanhood.  If Grudem is suggesting that the final word on the matter is God’s design for man and woman, and that His character is evident in the godly expression of both manhood and womanhood, then I agree.  However, I don’t think that manhood and womanhood themselves hang in the balance.  What does hang in the balance is Christian charity, unity, and godly character.  What really matters is how we stand before God and live out our lives with one another.  What matters are the auspices under which interpretation of Biblical texts is made, and the manner in which disagreement over these texts is handled. 

Why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit?

The answer commonly given comes from Gen. 3:17 by way of Pauline interpretation: he listened to Eve. Eve was deceived by the serpent and therefore ate of the fruit, and Adam listened to Eve and ate of the fruit as well.

But why did he listen to her? Is it her fault? Is it his fault? Is it the serpent's fault?

The serpent beguiled Eve. She listened to the serpent instead of obeying God. Adam listened to Eve instead of obeying God. All three were cursed. Note that, when God asked Adam whether he'd eaten of the tree of knowledge, he blamed Eve (Gen 3:12). When God asked Eve what she'd done, she blamed the serpent (v. 13). So God cursed first the serpent, and then Eve, and then Adam. Is there significance to this order? Was it first the serpent's fault, and then Eve's fault, and then Adam's?

In Romans 5:12-19, we read that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression (disobedience), not through either the serpent or through Eve. Does this mean that original sin is imputed to Adam, and that he is responsible for that sin? (In I Corinthians 15:22 Paul says that "in Adam" all die.)

I am in the debt of those who contribute to the ongoing conversation on "Women in the Church", as they bring to the surface matters which color our positions on complementarianism and egalitarianism. Conversations which help to refine thinking, not so we will simply have an academic grasp of the matter, but that we can answer more of the question."How then should we live?" Living out the gospel to its fullest measure is ultimately the end of all our theological struggling and our efforts to know the will of God. We aren't trying to win arguments in this, or shouldn't be; we aren't simply abstractly interested. Most of us sincerely want to understand and advocate doctrine that will lead to "Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven".

That is why the discussion is important to us.

I was reading The Complegalitarian and happened upon a strongly worded argument with these words, "the fundamental lie of complementarianism" . It was a response of Peter Kirk in his post,Complementarianism: Sola Scriptura or Sola Traditio? to a comment by Jeremy Pierce concerning the position that some have on "status" of the differing roles of men and women as defined by those of complementarianism. [See this post for definition of the two terms, complementarian and egalitarian]

The glaring error that stood out to me was on the point of "status". In making the comment, "I am not going to abandon wisdom for the folly of believing the comps’ insistence that women have equal status while denying them every possibility of expressing that equal status. That is not equality, it is oppression, it is Animal Farm “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” double-speak." from Peter Kirk, in his comment response to Jeremy, the whole debate was thrown into another arena than understanding the position given in the Christian scriptures. While my own position is closer to Peter's than to the traditional complementarians, this emphasis on status made me realize that in the conversation on women's roles we are dealing with two separate systems of deciding "status" : that of the spiritual 'Kingdom of God' and that of the world, the 'Cosmos'. Sometimes the logical fallacy of equivocation is committed. We use this word "status", but we really are talking about the concept of authority in the debate over women's roles in the Church. "Status" in spiritual terms is what God deems of high position and value, "status" in the worldly sense of our comparisons of position and power are something else again.

It is worldly status that both sides end up talking about. Peter Kirk is correct in pointing out the disingenuous position of complementarians:

“Complementarians say that men and women have equality of nature, but their view of difference in roles reveals that this supposed equality of nature is really unequal.

The whole trouble with it is that truth "The first shall be last and the last shall be first". We don't judge things on the basis of the world's standard of status... we can't. We have a whole 'nother system.

I started out to comment on Ilona’s post on Eve-ness but it got rather long (understatement), so I thought I’d post it as two blog entries. Here goes:

Ilona, this is a very good exploration. I think we must identify just where terms like “hierarchy,” “mutual submission,” “delegation,” and “chain of command” apply, though, in the scheme of things.

You say, When we say that "God has all the authority" we don't mean He micromanages all the decisions, and the same holds for men and women. I think we have to look at this from that point of view: God places men in authority over creation, not instead of, but by delegation. If men have authority in a position of "headship", they can delegate anything up to the final authority to their wives. This is real authority. That means wives exercising real authority in harmony as their husband's partner. But for many advocates of feminism that isn't enough.

Upon what (authority ;-) ) would you build a case that, because God delegates authority over creation to mankind (Genesis 1:28), that husbands therefore have authority that they may delegate to their wives? First, I think it could be debated whether or not God actually delegates authority to mankind in Gen. 1:28. He certainly bestows authority (authorizes), yet he also directs, or commands.

Some questions that I think must be asked, relating to your statement: Does a husband have exclusive authority by nature of his headship? Is authority always passed down, outside of human institutions which require a chain of command such as a business or other organization involving groups of people, and outside of what God bestows upon people? Does a wife’s answering to her husband have an additional dimension that his accountability to her doesn’t have?

A directive (or command) is not delegation, nor is authority given Christ by the Father, because He does not answer to the Father for it. Nor do I delegate authority to my son when I tell him to clean up his room, although he answers to me for the state of his room and whether or not he cleaned it when I directed him to. Yet I allow him some latitude (authorize him) to decide just how to pick it up. And I answer to God for my dealings with my son.

Continued from part I

Regarding mutuality and consensus, mutuality happens between two or more people who are, in some aspect, of the same mind toward one another, or of character or similarity of relationship. Consensus can also occur between two or more people but has to do with a coming-together in agreement, or ending such convention with agreement. But mutuality in marriage need not designate consensus nor submission to authority within the relationship; mutuality isn’t just about decision-making.

There is no consensus in the Godhead – it has (they have) one will. Nor is there mutual submission in the Godhead. Ephesians 5 and 6 do not argue for consensus per se, but they do argue for mutual submission. They erase any notion of entitlement or legitimacy of fleshly power. Does a husband rule his wife, or a parent rule his children, or a master his slave? In some ways, yes, but which ways? Is the relationship between husband and wife the same as that between a parent and child, or a master and slave? No – these are three different relationships. What they have in common is an order in terms of human identity or lot, or form, and the functions and roles inherent in that. In some ways there is rule, but in some of those ways, the rule goes from "inferior" to "superior". This is why I said, early on in my series, that we must determine what rule there is in various places, and what authority.

In Faith of the Feminine, National Review Online contributor Colleen Carroll Campbell reports on the recent three-day Vatican Congress which addressed the role of women in the Catholic Church and society. According to German philosopher Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, "feminism is an outgrowth of Christian ideas about women's equal dignity: 'Only in Judeo-Christian culture sprang up this humanization of women.'"

Pope Benedict XVI also spoke of the importance of defending the dignity of women:

In "Mulieris Dignitatem," John Paul II wanted to delve into the fundamental anthropological truths of men and women, the equality in dignity and their unity, the rooted and profound difference between the masculine and the feminine and their vocation to reciprocity and complementarity, collaboration and communion (cf. "Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 6). This dual-unity of man and woman is based on the foundation of the dignity of every person, created in the image and likeness of God, who "created them male and female" (Genesis 1:27), as much avoiding an indistinct uniformity and flattened-out and impoverished equality as an abysmal and conflictive difference (cf. "Letter to Women," No. 8). This dual-unity carries with it, inscribed in bodies and souls, the relation with the other, love for the other, interpersonal communion that shows that "the creation of man is also marked by a certain likeness to the divine communion" ("Mulieris Dignitatem," No. 7). When, therefore, men or women pretend to be autonomous or totally self-sufficient, they risk being closed up in a self-realization that considers the overcoming of every natural, social or religious bond as a conquest of freedom, but which in fact reduces them to an oppressive solitude. To foster and support the true promotion of women and men one cannot fail to take this reality into account.

HT: Scriptoruim Daily

...Hillary Clinton has been sidelined because of her appearance.

...others [have] said, "she is a woman and therefore dangerously sexy, but also a woman and therefore a tedious maternal nag."

So reports author and speaker Jonalyn Grace Fincher in Powerful People -- Old, White Men; Pretty, Young Women, calling attention to what we all know, but perhaps don't pay enough of the proper kind of attention to.

Fincher blames our hooked-on-image culture for the dismissal of Hillary Clinton, although I think it's also due to the fact that criticizing looks or taking any other sort of cheap shot (insult) is the easy way out. It's a convenient, if low-down, way to avoid actually engaging with why you differ with the person, or to discredit them, or to distance yourself from them.

Fincher notes especially the captivating power of women, though women aren't the only ones who have the power to captivate, as she and others point out in the comments to her post. She also rightly bemoans our Hollywood culture, and, although I don't believe there weren't image-bearers of the fashion kind before the twentieth century, nor people addicted to sex-appeal, I do agree with her that image-based sex appeal and attractiveness -- image in general -- drive our American culture, even within the church. Virtue, of the classic (godly) variety, seems to have fallen out of popularity.

Regular readers will remember that, a few months ago, I began a series to look at gender issues. Having never examined them previously to any depth, I thought it was time. I am grateful for resources, limited though they may be, at my disposal (time, books, etc.).

As I look at the material, though, I fairly despair of producing any worthwhile posts because there is just so much to respond to. So much to reference. So much more I don't have time to read. I don't know how to use footnotes in a blog post, nor would it probably be worth my time to learn. So please bear with me as I attempt to write about the things I find most notable, which don't require further research.

My search for the bottom of the issues, for their origin and what drives them, has taken me to some surprising places. Looking into the term "feminization" was one such venture. My first quest was to learn just what it meant. Apparently, as applied to men, it means evidencing "female" characteristics and being afraid (or lacking knowledge) to be truly masculine, ostensibly due to the influences of feminism which render only "feminine" traits culturally acceptable. (Which I mostly don't buy.) But, as I've come to find, "feminization" didn't originally refer to the emasculation of men, but to the addition of females and their concerns to the ranks and services of social organizations: the term was used in the late 1970s to refer to women in poverty. (Someone please clue me if it goes back farther.)

As applied to the church, the term seems to have meant both this and the fact that there are more women in church than men, and therefore church purportedly caters more to women. Admittedly, when I first read this I had to ponder, and wonder, because it hasn't been my personal experience in the many churches I've attended in my 44 years. Honestly. According to Leon J. Podles, this means that either I "have not noticed," or have "[chosen] to deny the obvious because of a feminist, or...a traditionalist agenda." However, I'm not aware that my powers of observation are particularly lacking, nor would I say that I have either a feminist or a traditionalist agenda.

I can't remember the last time I found the introduction to a book so completely and delightfully satisfying as the one in Gregory Vlastos' Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Really. I hope to someday read the entire book, though I may never fully understand it, as it is part of a body of scholarship with a history that can only be apprehended substantially by the lifetime student of the specific discipline of Socratic study. (Which is part of my point in telling you about the introduction. But I'll get to that.)

"How This Book Came to Be" starts off like this:

Socrates' "strangeness" (ατοπια) is the keynote of Alcibiades' speech about him in the Symposium. The talk starts on that note (215A); and reverts to it near the end:

Such is his strangeness that you will search and search among those living now and among men of the past, and never come close to what he is himself and to the things he says. (221D)

This book is for readers of Plato's earlier dialogues who have felt this strangeness, have asked themselves what to make of it, have pondered answers to its enigmas, and are willing to work their way through yet another. What I offer should not distract them from their encounter with the Socrates who lives in Plato's text. It should take them back there for a closer look.

By this time there are two long footnotes, together about two-thirds the length of the text I just quoted. The 20-page Introduction has more footnotes than some books I've read (74). But I'm glad, because they explain and support the text and provide sources. (When it comes to scholarship, thoroughness is a cardinal virtue.)

In as abbreviated form as I can manage (these are, after all, blog posts), I will synopsize the story:

First of all, I want to apologize for how my presentation of this series is dragging out. (Believe me, it's a lot more painful for me than it is for you.) This is a very ambitious project and unfortunately my time and energy are limited, as are the logistics of writing and being online. Thanks so much for your patience.

Second of all, I had to take Vlastos' book on Socrates back to the library and haven't had a chance to check it out again. But meanwhile, I found another book, "The Feminization of America", so I'll write about that until I can resume my commentary on Vlastos' Socratic introduction.

Written by an educational consultant and an anthropologist, both female, and published in1985, TFOA defines "feminization" as

the head-spinning changes now occurring in American life as a result of women's transitions from their historic domestic world to the public world of business, industry, and the professions...and the public world of action and achievement. (p. 1, p. 5)

This feminization entails the burgeoning (now flourishing) female presence in the work force, especially the upper echelon. It does not refer to a feminine (or feminist) takeover, however, nor a pushing-out of male presence and influence. It encourages addition of the female to a predominantly male milieu, for the purpose of bringing it legitimately to bear, not in the interest of kicking masculinity out.

(The "feminization of poverty," the earliest use of the term "feminization" that I have found, is also mentioned, on p. 100.)

It seems that those who have recently used the term "feminization" have either not use it in the manner in which it was first introduced, or have disdained such feminization, criticizing the influence which has entered society either as a result of it (both good and bad), or else have used the term to refer, not to legitimate gender (sex) traits, but to undesirable human ones. Both they and the authors of this book generalize, limit, or fail to appreciate certain traits as appearing in one sex or the other, through use of the wrong rubric.

Yet the book makes cogent observations about the necessity of the female viewpoint and presence in public (and private) life, and offers a noteworthy definition of culture (p. 6):