So, what did Eggebroten find in her visit to MacArthur's little empire? “God is male, all the pastors, deacons, and elders are male, and women are taught to live in submission to men.” She should have expected as much because she had already visited the church's website. There, I had listened to Anna Sanders lecture women on how to live in submission to their husbands. “We need to beat down our desire to be right and have our own way,” she had said, citing John Piper, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, and Martha Peace—all authors published in the last decade. “It’s his way, his rights, his expectations, and his plans. … Be a helper.” Eggebroten ran into a woman with a degree from the school where she teaches. She asked the lady: “Is women’s submission to their husbands stressed in this church?” The answer, of course, was yes.
Molher calls Eggebroten on the carpet for being surprised at what she found. He says:
Anne Eggebroten’s article represents what I call a “National Geographic moment” — an example of someone discovering the obvious and thinking it exotic and strange. It is like a reporter returning from travel to far country to explain the strange tribe of people she found there — evangelical Christians believing what the Christian church has for 2,000 years believed the Bible to teach and require. So . . . what is so exotic?
I actually agree with Mohler. Why should anyone be surprised that a church that takes the Bible as literally the Word of God would put women down? The Bible clearly does that and so anyone who wishes to follow the Bible will also do that. Eggebroten says:
Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?
Mohler rightly calls her on "sloppy exegesis" here. He says:
In Galatians 3:28 Paul is clearly speaking of salvation — not of service in the church. Paul is declaring to believers the great good news that “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” [verse 26]. He concludes by affirming, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” [verse 29]. To read Galatians 3:28 the way Eggebroten reads the verse, you would have to believe that the Apostle Paul was in direct contradiction with himself, when he restricts the teaching office to men in letters such as 1 Timothy and Titus.
The reality is, as Mohler says, Paul is not contradicting the overall teaching of the Bible on women. It does actually reflect the "the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently." Eggebroten would like to find a change in perspective on this subject from Paul but she is misguided. In addition to the passages that Mohler cites, Paul also told women to be silent in the church and learn from their husbands (I Cor. 14:34-35) as well as implying that women are more easily deceived than men and need to allow their husbands to make important decisions while they concentrate on motherhood (I Tim. 2:12-15). This was the role of women in ancient cultures (and today in fundamentalist churches) and so, one should not be surprised to find the Bible supporting it.
Mohler is correct when he says: Paul is not liberating the Church from the Bible. In the end, that is the real issue. There are Christians who would demand to be liberated from the Bible? Now that is what really should be shocking. That is why I think liberal Christianity also fails. It wants to try to reinterpret the Bible to agree with modern culture and it is simply not possible without tearing out huge sections of the Scripture. The Bible, reflecting the culture in which it was written, reduces women to an inferior position to men. If one believes the Bible is the Word of God, then one must follow this teaching.
The bad part is when couples try to over-simplify things and go by the Bible. Men and women and personalities and strengths and weaknesses don't seem to be taken into account in these verses.
ReplyDeleteAnd sometimes it's the women who insist on an extreme submission set-up. They are trying to follow the Bible. Everyone ought to check out "No Longer Quivering"-a book written about the Patriarchy Movement.
To me, real life and real people are so much more complex than the Bible presents them. The idea from the Bible can even be pretty much a good one to go by, yet many other factors must be considered. In other words, you have to engage your brain and common sense. It's when you throw those things out the window and get very strict about how you must do things-much harm results for the family. That's been my experience anyway.
Lynn, well said! You know, the popular complaint of the day is that so many evangelical/fundamentalist churches are pre-dominantly female and people are asking where are the men, especially single men?!?! Related to this complaint is another question that many people are asking. And that is why are there so many single Christian women? Christianity today had an article a while back entitled "The death of the evangelical male." This probably isn't a problem at McArthur's church, but most evangelical/fundamentalist Christian churches tend to be more female than male. Now, how does this relate to Ken's post? Well, it turns out that, the reason there is a high number single women than men in evangelical/fundamentalist Churches is that the expectations of these women is so unrealistically high, because they know, that according to the Bible they have to submit to their husbands, and so this person who may be their husband better be the biggest freaking holy roller with absolutely no trace of any kind of problems.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThat sounds about right. Women on this kick (and I used to be one of them)can have very unrealistic expectations of their husbands. Their poor husband doesn't get to just be a normal, decent person. He must live up to being a wonderful Christian husband (whatever that entails from his wife's point of view.)
It also works the other way. If some guy has all these Bible ideas about how his wife is supposed to be, then she doesn't get to be her natural self-she must try to be what she's not.
So if you just stay in the realm of reality instead of trying to incorporate the Bible, you'll be better off!
Mike: Related to this complaint is another question that many people are asking. And that is why are there so many single Christian women? Christianity today had an article a while back entitled "The death of the evangelical male."
ReplyDeleteI think it's a multi-pronged problem. The default men-in-charge perspective is probably a big part of the issue. And it's inextricable from the idea of manhood espoused by those who are in charge of such things.
You can't just be a guy. You can't just be happy doing whatever you want to do. And you certainly can't go out and raise hell. The image of a man as presented in stuff like Wild at Heart is basically someone who has to be constantly in control. And if you do lose control you can't let anyone know, because all of the sudden their world will fall apart. "If [this guy] can't do it, then how can I?" is a question that's often asked.
I know that back when I was in that world I was terrified of losing control. I was generally in the alpha male position with people looking to me all the time. It basically invites massive amounts of stress and paranoia. When I left the church I actually did have people throw the, "Have you thought about how your decision will effect other people?" argument thrown at me.
Oddly, in my specific case, that also didn't help me get one of those submissive women that are apparently issued at the door of MacArthur's church. For one thing, I didn't have a lot of self-confidence in that department, but was constantly forced to cover it (which is pretty easy to do, BTW. Just say you're staying single to dedicate your life to god and everyone will be suitably impressed. And you won't have to actually try to meet someone. It's kind of a vicious circle). Also, I didn't want a submissive helpmeet. From a purely selfish perspective, that sounded boring. From a more altruistic perspective, I was well aware of the fact that I'm not always right and that there's no way anyone could possibly have a full life if it's supposed to wholly revolve around me. I mean, my life doesn't revolve around me. And I enjoy any number of random, esoteric things that I have no urge to force on anyone else...
Lynn: Their poor husband doesn't get to just be a normal, decent person. He must live up to being a wonderful Christian husband (whatever that entails from his wife's point of view.)
There's that, too...
One of the biggest problems, of course, is that there are as many definitions of being a "good Christian" as being a good match. So you've got all the baggage of expectations with an extra helping of, "God says this (by which I mean I say it, but I've got a really big stick to enforce it)."
Controlling men are also insecure men. They feel threatened by any suggestion that women are equals. They are also more likely to become violent and abusive towards their wives if the wife does not completely submit to their authority.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was single and dating (many years ago!) I would turn down any man who called himself a "Christian" on the first date. Mainstream -non-evangelical Christians- would generally not make an issue of their religious beliefs.
That's very..... Holy & Righteous of you DM. I am sure Jesus would do the same thing...
ReplyDeleteAren't women larger percentage of churchgoers? Its a shame they spend their time reading a bible and worshiping a God that clearly believes they are greatly inferior to their male counterparts.
n9y2476,
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me of a thought I had awhile back-I'm a slow learner I guess: Isn't the Bible basically written to men? Maybe Ken can address this. Especially the Old Testament-was it even meant to be read by women?!
I've thought of this when I'm bringing up Bible problems on Facebook-do many other women think I should address all this with my husband in private? lol
Ken,
ReplyDeleteI am sympathetic with your views in general and have been reading your blog for some time. However, I do want to offer a slightly different perspective regarding the texts. I have posted on my blog here.
I do agree with commenters above that any of the teaching regarding biblical manhood and womanhood is detrimental to both sexes, and I actually believe that things like the wedding vow some women make to "obey" their husband should be made illegal. I have some very strong feelings on this. But in this post I only discuss the texts. I would appreciate any response. Thanks.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article.
Suzanne,
As you were writing about submissive wedding vows, I was writing this:
---
My father goes to a different church now but learns the same thing. He recently remarried, and his written vows were interesting, focusing on the submission of wife to husband and repeatedly railing against divorce. Indeed, divorce was not even to be uttered in this new house.
They didn't have a marriage. They had an anti-divorce.
Watching the eyes of the crowd, there were no double takes at the submission of the wife to the husband, but I sensed a low, shuffling murmur in the pews after the fourth or fifth vow against divorce was read. The forceful determination in these vows and the worryingly repetitive nature left a distinctive impression of anxiety and desperation; it rippled through the air and infected the crowd, shuffling feet and twitching lips, furrowing brows and moving eyes in the sanctuary hall. A look here, a look there, each silently conveying the same impression.
It quickly passed. The reception was all smiles. There, I was introduced to a family which had made a mission of having as many children as possible. Indeed, they were obeying God through procreation. These Quiverfulls show up about everywhere. My childhood home has several Quiverfull neighbors. In Quiverfull families, the wives are almost always stay at home. With that many pregnancies and children, they have to be.
---
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteI read your post. Very close to home for me. I recently divorced, in the last few years. I believe that the church has created a hell for some people. Churches that teach these terrible things should probably be liable and have to contribute to a fund for therapy for those who have somehow escaped.
On the other hand, my parents and some others I know, had fully functioning and very loving marriages. These marriages were traditional but had none of the authority and submission crap in them. They predated this trend.
I think the kind of post that you put up is very valuable, since there needs to be a combined resistance against fundamentalist Christianity and the harm it does.
Suzanne McCarthy: "On the other hand, my parents and some others I know, had fully functioning and very loving marriages. These marriages were traditional but had none of the authority and submission crap in them. They predated this trend."
ReplyDeleteOf course, traditional is distinct from dysfunctional, and I know many couples for whom this was not a problem as well. But when there are problems, using the traditional model to establish order is a superficial and painful way to resolve them. For relationships that are (largely) harmonious, doctrine is not a necessary resort.
Everybody hears about the anti-scientific and political sides of fundamentalism, and the absurdity of many of the core beliefs, but personally, I feel that the social and psychological sides are far more damaging. Oddly, the "community" side is often cited broadly as a defense for these churches, but the community element in churches is double-edged.
The "family" part of Focus on the Family is too often underemphasized.
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteSimply put - I agree with you. Thanks for writing your post. It is important stuff and needs to be said.
With regards to this:
ReplyDelete"The reality is, as Mohler says, Paul is not contradicting the overall teaching of the Bible on women. It does actually reflect the 'the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently.'"
Couldn't we just as easily say that Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" actually reflects the kind of racism that existed in the pre-Civil War American South, and from there insist that Twain was actually promoting racism? He does, after all, use the n-word, and he refers to slaves with demeaning appellations such that their identity lies in who owns them, and not in themselves.
However, the plot of Huckleberry Finn largely centers around how Huck helps a slave to run away, and how he learns to see Jim as a full human being. Can we make a point that Twain is trying to say something important that, as the original audience would have understood it, reflected a move away from slavery? Or is it all that matters, that Twain reflects the attitudes of his times in the use of the n-word?
A reading of the New Testament that insists on seeing only the social heirarchy that existed at the time, might very well be missing what the original audience might have understood Paul to actually be saying; that his words reflect new ideas about male-female relations, which the audience, hearing his message within the historical context of those times, would have understood entirely differently than it looks to us on a surface reading only.
It is somewhat interesting to find hyper-literal fundamentalist Christians and non-religious people in so much agreement about what the Bible is actually all about. Only perhaps those hyper-literal fundamentalists are working from an overly simplistic understanding of the text-- and the non-religious find no reason to look any deeper.
- Kristen
"Couldn't we just as easily say that Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" actually reflects the kind of racism that existed in the pre-Civil War American South, and from there insist that Twain was actually promoting racism? He does, after all, use the n-word, and he refers to slaves with demeaning appellations such that their identity lies in who owns them, and not in themselves."
ReplyDeleteIf Mark Twain's work was claimed to be a moral authority, and we did not know his style, then this would be a problem.
"
However, the plot of Huckleberry Finn largely centers around how Huck helps a slave to run away, and how he learns to see Jim as a full human being. Can we make a point that Twain is trying to say something important that, as the original audience would have understood it, reflected a move away from slavery? Or is it all that matters, that Twain reflects the attitudes of his times in the use of the n-word?"
Unfortunately, Paul did not tell us about all of the time he spent fighting alongside of the Roman suffragettes, so this is a hollow analogy.
"A reading of the New Testament that insists on seeing only the social heirarchy that existed at the time, might very well be missing what the original audience might have understood Paul to actually be saying; that his words reflect new ideas about male-female relations, which the audience, hearing his message within the historical context of those times, would have understood entirely differently than it looks to us on a surface reading only"
Paul aside, this depends on how you mean "surface reading." If you drop perspicuity as an interpretative standard and if you claim to have a different source of revelation which allows you to selectively accept and reject ethical teachings on the basis of a broad entity (which could be used for any norm given by scripture, by the way) as "culture," then you have a point. But if you do all of this, you might see how the Bible might be rendered a little less of a... say... authority. But that brings us to this:
"It is somewhat interesting to find hyper-literal fundamentalist Christians and non-religious people in so much agreement about what the Bible is actually all about. Only perhaps those hyper-literal fundamentalists are working from an overly simplistic understanding of the text-- and the non-religious find no reason to look any deeper."
Is my understanding so simplistic? How is yours "deeper"? Do you really believe that the problems all disappear if we discard a literal reading of ethical norms with which we disagree?
In this case, how is the Bible divinely inspired? What hermeneutic do you use to consistently arrive at your interpretation of Paul, but not at a similar interpretation of Jesus or the prophets?
Unless we toss aside the concept of theology as coherent outlook, we have trouble picking and choosing. I am an unbeliever, but here, the fundamentalists have a point.
Kristin,
ReplyDeleteSorry if I came across as impatient, as I really hope that you answer me. I am frequently told that a "deeper" reading of scripture makes all of these problems disappear, but in my experience, the offered "deep" methods are actually incoherent wish-thinking.
I implicitly assumed that of you, which was not correct for me to do. So, in all seriousness, I am interested: what is your method for reading scripture that allows you to distinguish between "culture/context/not applicable today" and "norm we have to hold today."
If your method is what we might call "humanistic," that's ok, but I would still be curious as to why your reading of scripture would be in any way relevant.
Zachary, all I'm advocating is that we consistently working to learn the historical context in EVERY passage-- so as to take the shared cultural assumptions of the writers and their original audiences into account. When we do this, it becomes easier to differentiate the settings of the Bible, from the principles being taught in the Bible. It's important not to take the shared cultural assumptions as if THEY were the principles being taught-- just because from our modern perspective, we don't understand them as shared cultural assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI think that if we consistently read ancient texts in light of their ancient literary and historical contexts, with a view to what words meant in the original languages and how those words might have changed over time-- the actual message intended by the writers and understood by the original audience, becomes clearer.
I am not talking about some special, hidden knowledge-- I am doing nothing other than using the same methods a court uses to understand the legislature's intent behind the wording of a law. I'm a paralegal, and as such I understand how the written word can contain ambiguities, and how one uses contextual and interpretive tools to understand those ambiguities. If one writer appears to contradict himself in the same piece of writing-- such as "women can pray and prophesy in church" and "women must keep silent in church"-- you don't just toss the whole thing out; you use historical and literary context, other things the author has said, the way the author uses the same words in other instances, etc., to try to figure out what the original authorial intent was.
Actually, Paul DOES several times talk about how he worked alongside female "co-laborers" for whom he exhibits deep respect. He refers to Phoebe as his "benefactress" and uses the same word for her "minister" that he uses for males. It is the translators who have turned these words into "servant" and "helper" or similar words. Paul calls a woman named Junia "outstanding among the apostles." It is the translators who have changed her name to the male form "Junias."
I agree that Paul was not a social revolutionary. He considered his mission to be the spread of the gospel. But neither was he actively endorsing the cultures of the times, as God's eternal will for all time. A consistent application of interpretive principles can make all the difference.
Kristin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the broad outline, but I would like to see how it works in practice. For Paul (and the Bible generally), it would not be accurate to claim that it is entirely negative of women, for example, but it is nevertheless consistently patriarchal. Most strongly, the defense of the subjection of women to husbands/fathers on spiritual matters and within the home is defended. I assume that you are familiar with the verses that would be relevant here.
Note, this is not generalized disrespect or contempt for women and would not preclude Paul respecting a Junia, for example (or a book admiring the conduct of an Esther), but the context of the "thou shalt not suffer a woman to teach," as in Church, makes his intention rather clear: women, while still playing a role in the church, may not be at the head of the church over a man.
If we view Paul as a divinely-inspired writer within an coherent revealed work, the force of the patriarchy interpretation is only strengthened. This problem transcends Paul in particular and the culture of any relevant writer in particular. For some matters, like the commandment against envy, the listing of women as property might be taken as nit-picky, but for many other verses, the message is clear.
And here is the problem: what is "culture" and what is "divine"?
For, if we take a reading of scripture in cultural context, the Golden Rule might be fairly called a cultural tenet, as it has been present in some form in most major cultures prior to appearing in scripture. Ok, well that's fine enough. But wait, the Ten Commandments, and most mosaic law, were given in the context of a (former slave?) tribe somewhere in the middle east. And by the timeline given by modern criticism, the covenant with Abraham as securing the promised land for the Jews might be called social polemic. Indeed, many of the prophets wrote social polemic, including injunctions against idols and the rejection of henotheism. If these were social polemic, then is it OK to believe in other gods besides Yahweh?
What set of principles are you applying to rule these out as part of the "cultures of the times." Taken broadly, culture includes religion as a subset, so I am curious where the distinction arises.
If we discard scripture as a coherent, revealed whole, then... Need I elaborate?
Obviously, I am not trying to argue you into fundamentalism, but I am trying to show that even a careful reading of scripture, to a believer, leaves divinely-mandated patriarchy tenable. And contradicting this, a lot of comfortable certainties associated with the literalistic/perspicuous reading of scripture are lost in a liberalized Christianity, even if that more liberal Christianity might be more appealing to intellectual and humanistic sentiments.
Ah, I haven't yet gone into detail of the implications of Paul's words being in some way divinely-inspired... I wonder if God might have vouchsafed Paul a conviction along the lines of "hey, maybe this line will be taken the wrong way by a lot of folks... let's not put that bit in." There's another can of worms which opens with the implications of divine inspiration...
Of course, to go further, you would have to make your demarcating interpretative principles explicit.
Suzanne,
ReplyDeleteI almost forgot, but thank you for reading and appreciating my post. I'm considering collecting personal anecdotes like my own into a link-heavy post of some description, so if you know of something similar which as already been done, I would appreciate it.
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteThis is my story, just before I left my ex. I have kids and things were pretty traumatic at the time but have settled down considerably now.
http://recoverypoetry2006.blogspot.com/2006/11/beaten-wifes-story.html
I have not in any way attempted to defend the Bible or the use of the Bible in subordinating women. I don't think the church has the answers for me.
However, what appalls me is that I do honestly believe that many theologians are aware that 1 Tim. 2:12 does not say "to exercise authority" but "to dominate" and they are hiding this because the first translation is too useful to them. It is the dishonesty of Christian theologians and exegetes and the inscrutability of the scriptures which is giving me the clear message that I have been had, to put it bluntly.
Actually you should read the blog on which my story is posted. It might just give you the shivers.
I changed the title of this post because I think it better communicates what I am trying to say.
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteI don't fundamentally disagree with you. But I feel that what I see is even worse than what you describe. Not only does the Bible contain some negative passages about women, but if the passages are not negative enough, then theologians bolster these passages and bulk up the teaching against women to keep them really under.
It is terribly depressing to know that this is happening.
Suzanne,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post and your informed comments. I am not basing my view of what the Bible teaches about women solely on the two passages 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2. I agree that 14:34 may be a scribal emendation but since I don't believe in divine inspiration, it really doesn't matter from my perspective. The Bible, in my opinion, reflects the thoughts of men about God and the world. If a scribe added it, and it has remained in the text, then Christians in general accepted its teaching.It is also possible that Paul has reference to disturbances in the service (hard to see how anyone could disturb the apparently wild services at Corinth)caused by women (who had to sit in a separate section from the men) asking their husbands questions. Who knows? This is the problem with ancient texts. Its very difficult to get the precise situation that is being addressed.
As for 1 Tim. 2, again we don't know the precise situation that called for Paul's remarks. However, it is clear from reading the entire passage 2:11-15, that he views women as somehow more easily deceived than men and therefore should not teach. This of course was probably not written by Paul but again from my perspective, it doesn't matter.
It is true that women have a more prominent role in the NT than they do in most other ancient literature. To me this is analogous to those that argue that slavery in the OT was more humane than slavery in other cultures. It just seems to me that if the Bible was really a divine revelation, it would show a marked difference in its teachings instead of just mirroring the culture around it.
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I find the comparison between Huckleberry Finn and the Bible to be apples and oranges. First, Twain is writing a novel. Second, the use of the N-word did not carry the opprobrium in his day that it does today. In my lifetime, I have seen this word become the worst possible word that any person could utter. It has not always been that way. Third, you are right that you judge what person really believes by their actions not their words and Huck shows himself not to be a racist.
In the case of the NT, the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God and the literary genre of the epistles are didactic, i.e., they are intended to teach, much like a lecture. That is far different than a novel. Regardless of how one interprets individual words in the passages it seems obvious that the overall tenor of the NT is that women are a notch below men. Yes, they are equal in terms of being saved (Gal. 3:28) but so are slaves. Just as Paul made no attempt to condemn slavery, he made no attempt to condemn the notion that women were a notch below men. Instead, he supported the notion by telling them to be submissive, etc.
Suzanne,
ReplyDeleteI just read your story and my heart goes out to you. Stories like yours are the very reason why I wrote this post. You said: My husband fed off every mention in the church of the submission of women. Exactly. They think that they are following God's will in requiring you to submit. I saw this kind of mistreatment of women regularly in my experience in the church. One man would actually "spank" his wife along with the kids when they disobeyed him. Other women would not be so obviously abused but they would be beaten down psychologically. Women have only recently begun to get equal rights in this country (women got the right to vote 50 years after black men). One of the tools that men have used to keep women down is the Bible. That is not to say that every Christian man abuses his wife. Not at all. But there is no getting around the fact that the Bible presents the man as the leader and women are a notch below.
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post and your comments. I have seen many Christians stay together simply because they believed that divorce was a sin. How terrible to live your life in misery because you are afraid to break a rule given in an ancient book written by men. Life is too short not to enjoy it and since this is probably the only life we have, how sad that people live in fear of disobeying a "holy book."
I agree the psychological harm done to some by fundamentalism is very great. I liked the idea of them being required to pay reparations!
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's not about being a whiner or a victim, it's simply that I like that it is now being said aloud that harm was done-and is still being done. And it's mainly the children that I see as victims. They are brought up in this stuff and don't know any better. It's caused me mental torture for years.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteMy family wasn't even that bad of a case. My childhood was only mildly puritanical, mostly by way of omission. In many other families, though not mine, only Christian music was allowed, or only Christian books. I have a neighbor who was home-schooled to avoid the evils of secular education. Here, none of this is taken as shocking or extreme, if a bit on the conservative side, and my city is one of the least rural areas in this area.
The social pressure against divorce remains immense, despite the tremendous divorce rate of our state and other religiously conservative areas generally. The social pressure against social liberalism is also an obvious presence. The social pressure against homosexuality... now there we tread toward mainstream forms of scary.
I knew 3 guys in high school who had parents tell them that if they find out, they would disown them or force them into therapy. It's not just the parents in absence, terrible as that is, because I remember my father giving a "whew" one day when reflecting on the shame of a friend who had an openly gay son.
In a similar way, social reinforcement brings out the authoritarian side of an otherwise kind person. For if your kids are involving themselves in conversations with grown ups, or something similar, or walking beside/ahead of you instead of behind you in public (this was always a big deal, for some reason), then it reflected poorly on you as a father. So, it was "children are to be seen and not heard" in public. In private, there was more leeway.
But as for those who take it to the sadistic levels as given in Suzanne's story, there is a pathological element beyond social pressure. In this case, verses are convenience and justification as opposed to basis. Fortunately for me, at least so far as I am aware, there was no sustained physical abuse for my mother. The corporal punishment for myself and my older brother sometimes bordered on the sadistic, and punishment focused overwhelmingly on the element of humiliation and fearful anticipation (a belting might be put off a week or two and "remembered" later), but as the family life broke down and I grew more defiant, it ceased to be a problem. Deja vu as I read your story, Suzanne, as it was replaced by extended lecturing.
I think that there is a little bit of the pathological element in my family's case, just as there appears to have been a lot of the pathological element in Suzanne's case. Through reinforcing these things, the churches have generated a lot of unnecessary suffering.
So, for me, who feels the consequences of these verses in a very visceral way, I am unsympathetic to defenses of scripture of the "well Paul wasn't actively condoning the culture" variety. On the intellectual side, I would argue that he was, and yes, this is the basis on which I must defend my stance to Kristin or anyone who maintains the contrary. But on the moral side, I feel a horrible repulsion when I read them, and to me, it creates a potent argument from evil.
It's easier today, when Christianity is so widely liberalized, to forget the days when divorces were banned or else practically impossible, at least for the general population. Now that would have been a nightmare.
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteI feel the same angst as you do. But for me it all tumbled down when I realized that articles on exegesis that I had been given were full of misrepresentations. I was shocked. I could read Greek myself, since I had studied it for 7 years, so I was simply blown away by the misrepresentations that I found in many of these articles.
Suzanne,
ReplyDeleteThough I do not have the benefit of Greek, the disparities between mainstream Christian scholarship, even from traditionally orthodox sources, and that of much fundamentalist/evangelical scholarship does make at least one thing clear: Christianity as given through scripture is very much subjugated to Christianity as preconceived, politicized doctrine in fundamentalist circles.
I'm not sure if you were referring to this disparity. If we take the secular exegetical sources, the removal is of course even more marked.
But then, my experience in these areas is more partial. I had fallen away from Christianity before I had come into contact with biblical criticism generally, which is unusual. My intellectual deconversion was more top-down.
Still, I am reminded of one of the ironies of secular protestantism elucidated by the Dennett/Lascola interviews: the differences between critical study of scripture and what makes it to the pulpit are tremendous.
As if any further proof was needed, here is an article from the UK, Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse
ReplyDeleteZachary, to go into a detailed analysis of my principles of interpretation would take up more space than comments in a blog post would allow for. I will mention one principle: the doctrine of "accommodation," which “refers to the need for God’s revelation to be adapted (accommodated) to human capabilities of understanding and reception.” (Essential Theological Terms by Justo Gonzalez.)
ReplyDeleteBut since Ken has said:
"So, for me, who feels the consequences of these verses in a very visceral way, I am unsympathetic to defenses of scripture of the 'well Paul wasn't actively condoning the culture" variety'" -- I find it inappropriate for me in this forum to further defend the book which was used as a stick to beat him with. Why should I cause more pain to those for whom the Bible is a trigger for pain?
If you'd like to take up the discussion in another venue, Zachary, let me know.
- Kristen
Kristen,
ReplyDeleteI've put a post up at my blog. Consider the comment section of this post to be your sandbox.
Why thank, you, Zachary!
ReplyDeleteAl Mohler has now come out against yoga.
ReplyDelete