----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:38 PM Subject: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women
> > Exactly. > > > If someone says they believe in X because they > > believe in X, then I can see > > no way of discussing this with them if you believe > > in ~X. If one can find > > a common ground of Y, then there is a chance for > > dialog. > > "Aye, there's the rub." > > > > When so much of what is supposed to be 'the word > > > of God' makes little sense to my learning and > > experience, > > > I would be scissoring out merely the few bits that > > > mesh with my reasoning. If I was actually looking > > > for religious text to support my views. > > > That's funny, because most of scripture makes sense > > to my learning and > > experience. Part of it, I think, is that I have > > studied the context a bit > > more than you have. From what it sounds like, your > > interpretation seems to > > be influenced by the folks with baggage that you > > have talked with. > > <wry> Give me some credit for being able to make up > my own mind, Danno! Until well after college, when I > was active in chapel council and attended weekly Bible > study sessions (with a leader who read from Latin, > Greek and Hebrew texts to illustrate the difficulties > inherent in translation and across cultural lines), I > defended my status as 'Christian' to my atheist and > agnostic friends quite spiritedly. Several things > gradually changed my self-acknowledged status; I've > previously mentioned the issue of belief as a Gift, > and my inability to accept that Belief is in itself a > Grace or Gift, because that means that God withheld > that Gift from some of my friends - good, honest and > caring folk - why? > The issue of woman's status had several tendrils as > well, one of which was my initial dislike of the > thought of women as pastors...yes, *me,* whose parents > encouraged her to be a scientist or rancher or writer > "because you can do whatever you really put your mind > to"! It felt 'wrong' to me that a woman should be a > pastor...and when I finally realized that I didn't > feel comfortable with the idea that a woman could be > God's shepherd because *of what I'd heard in the > church all my life* - that was a watershed moment. Well, I'm not in a position to argue why you felt what you felt, but I do have a few observations to throw at that. My daughters didn't have that opinion. They grew up seeing women in the pulpit, and never thought that there was anything wrong with it. I didn't. As an adult, even thought I intellectually favored having women priests; the first time I saw it, it felt wrong. I realized it was simply because I never saw it before, and after seeing women preachers a few times, it became very normal. So, might I suggest that, if you went to a church which had a woman pastor, you would have been far more likely to accept women as pastors? > This is a negative view of women in the OT: > http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm > > > > Read any of the Creeds again -- the boundaries are > > > quite clearly laid out. And "binding God" is > > > precisely what nearly all religions embrace, in > > >that 'this is the best (or only) way.' > > > I bet you have not read Anthony De Mello, then. :-) > > Which Creed is his? ;) He is probably the most influential Catholic mystic of the last 30 years. He has written a number of books on prayer, and he is very well respected among people doing work in contemplative prayer. He has studied and written extensively on Eastern techniques for Christian prayer. He talks about the impossibility of putting bounds on God. Writing about shared faith is not the same thing as bounding God. A good example of this is the Presbyterian view of reformed, always reforming. The shared confessions and creeds do not bound God, they "give a reasonable understanding of what scripture leads us to believe." In particular, it is clear that, in the literal sense, the confessions contradict each other. I know as a fact that the authors of later confessions knew this full well. They were not going for the letter of the law. > > I agree that a community of faith is a very good way > to impart virtues and good values, as well as provide > one way for people to act upon those values; in fact I > noted in a previous post that if I had a child I > _would_ want to find a church for those reasons. > But I am writing of why _I_ am not active in a > Christian church, and cannot profess a Creed without > perjuring myself before the Divine. I am not > attempting to convert anyone to "my" way - especially > since I'm figuring it out 'on the fly.' I think my intent in arguing this point with you is not clear. What I had particular difficulty with was the idea of picking and choosing things that fits one's internal feel, without any external reference. That gives no chance for dialog. If, on the other hand, one has a creed one can express, the chance for dialog exists. Commonality and differences can be discussed. IMHO, discernment is very difficult. I consider those who think it is automatic "of the milk." Dialog helps discernment; we are more likely to go astray if we have no external checks. That doesn't mean we just follow the crowd; it means we are in dialog with others. At the end of your post, you list a personal creed. That is, IMHO, a step up from cutting and pasting to suit one at the moment because it involves a standard that you agree to be held to. > > It's simply worse among the fundamentalists of all the > 'people of the Book,' but the second-class status of > women is there, albeit quite subtly, across the board > - although see below for Jesus being recorded as > treating women far more equally than his > contemporaries. Of course, woman as second-class was > also the general Greco-Roman viewpoint, so once the > 'new sect' was adopted by Rome, women's status fell > again. What is very frustrating about this for me is that you are assuming that a provably false interpretation of scripture must be true. I'll comment as we go along. > > I am not so naive as to mean 'equal in all ways;' that > would mean looking for a clone! ;) > But while I expect a partner to be stronger/more > knowledgeable/more capable in certain areas than I, > likewise I would be stronger,etc. in _other_ areas. > Most particularly, I cannot be joined to another who > thinks _God_ gave him dominion over me just because he > has a Y chromosome. Sure, that's understandable. My point was far more limited than that: it addressed whether most fundamentalists would or would not dismiss a woman's interpretation of scripture simply because she is a woman. > > > >... With all due respect, I don't get > > the feeling that you've > > studied the bible as well as the typical BSF person. > > Amy and I understand it better, so that helps a > lot. > > <wry> I'm not a seminarian, obviously; OTOH, if I as > an intelligent layperson feel that there is a definite > anti-female bias in Christianity (and Judaism and > Islam and Hinduism - don't know enough about Buddhism > except anecdotally a former B. nun told me women were > also 'second-class'), that ought to be at least a > yellow flag, if not a red. OK, say we have a yellow flag. What's the next step, then? I'd argue that it is reading the scriptures with historical/critical techniques to better answer the question. If one does that, one tends to understand Gomes straightforward rules for understanding scripture. For example, it is clear that the people who God favored in scripture were not perfect. David is the archetype example of this. There is no way to argue that scripture intends that we should use David's whole life as a role model. Yet, the principals of scripture from that time are clear and relevant today. > <sigh> So what is the parent to do with the child > during _regular_ service, when the texts are read 'as > is' with any interpretation done afterward? Should > children not be allowed until they're in the 7th or > 8th grade? No sermon? No discussion after church at home? In addition, I have taught Jr. high for years. Most of them remember Sunday School stories. There is next to no memory of the readings in church. You may have been fairly unique as a child to be more influenced by the passages of scripture read during the service than by your Sunday school class. If one does have a child who listens carefully, and is bothered by the occasional problematic passage, then it is unlikely that they are raised in a home where religion isn't discussed. Kids raised in those homes usually zone out during the reading > WRT the Old Testament, the underpinning of Judaism, > Christianity and Islam: I'm snipping your quotes because, while I have quibbles about the idea that earlier times were better for women, that's not my focus. I'll accept that the OT was written in a time where the social status of women was low. That is a historical given. The real question, then, is how scripture deals with that given; not the sociology of the times. I saw my daughter preach on a minor female character in scripture last Sunday. She is strongly inspired by the OT women...how they are great examples for us, even given the prejudices against them. She doesn't ignore the nature of the society at the time, but she focuses on the lives of those women. > > Let me take the example of Adam and Eve. The > > problem with it is that folks > > have chosen to use Eve being the first one tempted > > as an indication of the > > lesser state of women.... You can ask the kids, if > > they have ever blamed > > someone else for something they did wrong. Was it > > just making excuses? Who's fault was it? > > "Jesus loves me, this I know/For the Bible tells me > so..." Meaning that unless you really edit what > scriptures are presented, young children will hear > only the surface, and that surface carries a lot of > weight (moral authority). They usually hear what is told to them in stories, not the implication of the actual scripture. It is incumbent on the adults to have them teach the bible stories in a reasonable manner. Also, as I mentioned before, > >.... What Adam did was Adam's fault, > > what Eve did was Eve's > > fault; they are both equally to blame for the mess > > they created. > > I quite agree; I think you will find that the general > lay public's interpretation of that scripture differs, > however. So, the answer is education, not dissing scripture. >And of course the very existence of Woman > has two Genesis accounts: "While the first account of > the origin of human beings (Genesis 1:1‑2:3) > recounts that both male and female were created > simultaneously, in the divine image, and equally > charged to multiply and to dominate the earth and > their fellow creatures, the second narrative (Genesis > 2:4ff.) preserves a tradition of male priority. Here, > woman is a subsequent and secondary creation, formed > from man's body to fulfill male needs for > companionship and progeny." > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z687320D8 > > > I don't teach 6-8 year olds its true, but it was > > easy to get this across to > > 7th and 8th graders. The essence of the story is > > not about the differences > > between Adam and Eve, so it should be > > straightforward to get this right. > > > > The bottom line is that there are many communities > > which don't believe in > > the lesser status of women, and they can find a way > > to teach scriptures that is not sexist. > > Jesus is presented as treating men and women more > equally: > http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm > > Initially women had equal or near-equal status in the > new sect: > http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm > > What happened after that (disaster for women, until > recently, IMO): > http://www.religioustolerance.org/lfe_bibl.htm > [Incidentally, this site supports both my view that we > do not have "Jesus-anity" and *your* position that we > _don't_ have "Paul-anity"! Not to mention confirming > my 'heretic Lutheran' opinion... <err>] It also supports the position that the basic principals of Christianity are not anti-woman, and all one has to do is return to the roots to see that "there is no Greek nor Jew, no slave nor free, no man or woman, all are one in Christ Jesus." That is an absolute statement of equality by Paul. If you add the fact that Paul treated women as equal partners in the teaching of the new faith, referring to one woman with the technical term "co-worker" another as "apostle", and still others as the leaders of the church he was writing to, you will see a radical remake of the ancient world. Alas, these often fall short in revisionism. But, accepting women as equal to men needs to seen as truly accepting the gospel of Christianity, not as modern revisionism. That doesn't mean that you need to be a Christian; it means that rejecting it because it is against women doesn't reflect an understanding of its true principals. > So, back to the cut'n'pasting of what scriptures to > accept: much of what Jesus supposedly said and did, > and what occurred in the earliest post-crucifixion > days, calls for both men and women 'to love God and > love your neighbor as yourself' in near-equality. > What preceded and followed are another matter > entirely, particularly WRT women. Hmm, if you look through to the '50s and '60s, you will still find Paul preaching a radical rethink of basic norms. That's where using a cannon within a cannon to interpret scripture comes in handy. One can take the two great commandments and Paul's statement about total equality, and interpret scripture through them. One merely has to accept that the communities depicted in scripture do not follow their principals perfectly. That should be easy to accept, because it is stated repeatedly, from Genesis, to the letters of Paul. Peter, for example, is the rock the church is built upon, and is also depicted as often doing the wrong thing. Yet, he is a great example for us because he continually strives to follow his Lord, even though he stumbles and falls. You have, above, given a basic creed. Its a reasonable one; and is accepted as a cannon within a cannon by many. The real difference that I see between us is whether one cuts out scriptures that seems to contradict that, or interprets them in light of that most fundamental cannon one holds. I'd argue that there is a lot more to be gain by reinterpreting than by cutting. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
