Women in Ministry: Scripture and Feminism

Perhaps I am coming to the dance a little late? I think one thing that is overlooked here is that no one, not even Dennis comes to any information tabula rasa. We all have cultural bias and that is not to be overcome but embraced. The hermeneutical cirlce is different from one community to another. These quotes, whether in context or out of context is important only if one sees meaning as in the word itself. The thing that I find to be interesting is how the smartest person in the room pedantically looks down and seemingly is saying if you just get more information your mind will change. Transformation is not that easy, more info is not what is needed, better info perhaps. Interpretation is not that easy and the perpescuity of any given text is bull. One last thing from a closet nestorian our history matters. One persons view of history must be seen as a process of understanding. Just because someone states that these guys never meant this must be held with a high degree of suspicion no matter how many white men one pulls out to make the case. for every bad history concerning the Father's and Mother's written by evangelicals, there are alot since for the most part we are horrible historians, there is a good one read them both and use your brain and discernment to judge.

Now to the topic at hand Scot, isn't the fact that scripture can "mean" many things?

Scott

Dennis and others,

This is late in the discussion and I have not read the articles to which you refer - but have been steadily working my way through the writings of the church fathers. The kinds of "smoking guns" quotes presented here are generally taken out of context and are not representative, at least not as far as I've gotten so far. While the text is not misogynist - that is they do not promote a hatred of women - they are definitely and unashamedly male-centric.

So Tertullian can say something like: "The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die." (Chapter 1, on the Apparel of Women)

But he can also call his wife "my best beloved fellow-servant in the Lord" and he can extol Perpetua and Felicitas as steadfast martyrs for the faith.

There are many instances in my reading where the tenor of the text makes me uncomfortable. In many of these writings, as I must admit in most extant writings up to very recent times, there is a base-line assumption that women are less capable in many ways (particularly in intellect and capacity for "intrinsically moral" action) and that the exceptions are noteworthy because they are exceptions to a general rule. Frankly reading the works of C.S. Lewis makes me uncomfortable in the same way. There is a typical patronizing attitude - which carries over into many dimensions of discussion.

I’ve just come upon this thread, and I'm not a feminist scripture scholar, so can't speak from that point of view. But:

As a feminist, which I was for many years, I ignored Scripture.

As an Evangelical Christian, which I became later, I ignored feminists, except in prolife debates (and I won a few over to the prolife side).

As a convert to Catholicism, more recently, I was delighted in my study of history to learn that the Catholic Church was responsible for improving the rights of women in history, especially compared to how they were treated by the pagan Roman Empire (no rights at all - they were property of their fathers or husbands).

By the Middle Ages, women were no longer considered property; were not to be forced into arranged marriage (though their families still tried to do so); could be educated and own property and businesses of their own; had an equal say in the education of their children; could vote; could accede to the throne; many Abbesses exercised as much power and political influence as feudal Lords.

It was only after the Middle Ages that the decline of women began to occur, because of the Renaissance revival of classicism in the 16th century, which included the rediscovery and adoption of ancient Roman Law in the interest of centralized nation states, law which clearly favored men and relegated women to the status of children. Study of Roman Law entered the universities in earnest in the 17th century, and by the 19th century the rights of women had been virtually eliminated.

Tangential though this issue may be to Dr. McKnight’s question, it is important in the consideration of the feminist approach to scripture, because scripture is a Church document, so it is important to understand the attitude of the Church towards women in evaluating scripture.

By the way, these historical details are from the book “Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths” that Dennis mentioned, which I have on my bookshelf. It is written by the distinguished female historian Regine Pernoud, a medieval specialist. It’s a short and very entertaining read.

Accurate history does matter, contrary to what one commentator above said. After all, doesn’t our Christian faith depend on it, on the historical reality of the death and resurrection of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ?

The Church is not the problem, in my opinion. The problem is sin. Original sin has defaced relations between men and women since the Fall, thanks to the Father of Lies, who still continues to deceive.