International Women's Day - The Importance of Sharing Stories

Today is the annual observance of International Women's Day. Since March 8th falls on a Sunday this year, it seems especially appropriate to reflect on the issue of women's rights in regard to the Christian faith. Of course, I probably would have done this (and have) in other years anyway.

This is the first International Women's Day to pass without David Scholer, who was very outspoken in defense of the ability of women to serve in all ministries of the church. As he himself observed, it seems "especially true" that feminists thrive on sharing personal stories. Here is David's story of his association with this issue, as he wrote it for Christian Feminism Today a couple of years ago.

There is a common criticism that sharing such stories can be too "irrational," or not "impartial" enough, and thus should not be allowed to affect one's interpretation of Scriptural teachings, especially when it comes to issues of what women are allowed to do as Christians or what church offices they are allowed to hold. There is something I want to affirm in that criticism, in that the temptation to read into the Bible only those teachings one already believes in (and "explain away" the ones one doesn't) can be very strong. Indeed, it is a temptation that all Christians face. But I cannot affirm the conclusion that to share one's story is inappropriate. The Bible itself is full of such stories of personal experiences with God. I would go so far as to argue that most of the Bible is, in fact, story. A comparatively small portion of the Bible is straight "teaching" (or "doctrine," if you prefer) or some other genre (such as poetry and song). There is a good deal of overlap, to be sure. Prophecy, for example, often occurs in the context of the prophet sharing his story. Doctrine occasionally is taught within a "story" context. The point is, studies of the Biblical texts definitely suggest that telling the story of the people of God is a primary, if not the primary, method of how the text communicates who God is and what God has done for us, both in ancient times as well as today.

Within those Biblical stories, often set in a patriarchal culture, are many stories of women who went against the grain of that patriarchal culture. More often than not, these women are not chastised for this action, but are in fact praised for it. To suggest that these stories of women doing acts of ministry, proclamation and, yes, obedience are mere exceptions to the rule God would have for us today do not take these stories seriously enough, it seems to me. It is Deborah's story that is told in the book of Judges, not her husband's, and she who held the office of "judge" and is said to be "leading Israel" (or "judging Israel," depending on your translation). The book of Esther tells how one woman risked death by performing a very non-patriarchal action (going to speak with the king without his request to see her), and was rewarded for her bravery. Jesus affirmed Mary's choice to sit and listen to his teachings, not Martha's choice to prepare supper. Even Timothy (who received a letter of which much has been made against the idea that women should be allowed ministerial positions) is said to have come to faith as a result of his mother and grandmother, not his father.

Certainly, there are many more stories of men to be found in the Bible. This is to be expected, given the patriarchial culture. The existence of the stories of these women, told without negative judgement, is an indication that the culture of partriarchy is not intended to be normative for us today. Faithfulness to God's will is the important thing, and far from being criticised as being against that will, women's activity on God's behalf is affirmed as part of what God wants to do for God's people, whatever culture women (and men!) of God find themselves in. Praise be to God for the testimony of these faithful women!

UPDATE: 3/9/09 - I haven't been very good about linking to other people who have participated in the International Women's Day blog event. My apologies. You can get a list from Julie Clawson's site. In particular, I'd like to call attention to Scot McKnight's post (which was posted fairly late in the day, so I think a lot of folks missed it), which details biblical evidence for the existence of Junia, a female apostle.

International Women's Day 2011 - Change the World

I've been trying to make it a point to recognize International Women's Day every year for half a decade now (I seem to have missed 2008).  Apparently this year is the "centenary" of the observance, and as this recent commentary (noting that we seem to care far more about Charlie Sheen's outlandish comments and drug problems than we do about his history of violence against women) indicates, there is still quite a bit of work to do.
Read more »

International Women's Day - Writing Women Back into History

International Women's Day technically falls on March 8th (as it does every year), but since Mondays are already dedicated to my "New Testament in a Year" series, I'm going to go ahead and post my two cents today.  I figure that since the United States actually dedicates the entire month of March to "Women's History Month," I'm probably on safe ground.

The theme for Women's History Month this year is "Writing Women Back into History."  More often than not, the important contributions of women to the world have been either ignored, or given a rather cursory mention (perhaps as a footnote to the contribution of the woman's more famous husband?).  When and where we are aware of these contributions, it is important to help other people be aware of them, as well.  In this way, young girls may grow up recognizing that they, too, have the potential to do great things.  That's why I've taken on projects like the updated language version of Margaret Fell's Women's Speaking Justified.  The original work is in the public domain, and I'm fully sympathetic with anyone who would rather slog through the 17th century English than pay money for something that is available for free.  My main concern is that people be made aware that works like these are out there--that advocating for women in the church didn't start with the suffragettes and the women's liberation movement.

Of the various sometimes-controversial issues that Christians often engage in on theological grounds, the one that I've tried hardest to be up front and unapologetic for is my belief that women have just as much right to hold church office as men do, and I trust that a search through old blog posts--to say nothing of my promoting Fell's work--will bear that out.  On the other hand, I feel that I have to acknowledge that, as a man, I may not fully grasp how this issue impacts women, however sympathetic I may be.  I live in a society (to say nothing of my faith) that still grants men certain privileges it denies women, and I have benefited from that prejudice in ways that I don't fully realize.  I want to be careful not to say that "I understand" beyond what I truly do understand.

Still, it is my belief that, if only because of that existing cultural prejudice, it is important for sympathetic men to join their voices with those of concerned women in advocating for change.  So, although I certainly want women to help spread the word, I have a particular challenge to offer my male readers.  Would you please join me in doing our part to inform people of the contributions of women to the unfolding of our shared history?

REPOST - The Importance of Sharing Stories

This post was originally written in observance of International Women's Day in 2008. As with all reposts for this "Week of Mutuality" event, I have updated the material somewhat.

One thing (among many) that I learned from David Scholer was the observance that it seems "especially true" that feminists thrive on sharing personal stories, as he says when he relates his own story of work on behalf of women in church ministry, as he wrote it for Christian Feminism Today back in 2006.
Read more »

Still a Ways to Go

A friend of mine just came back from a visit to Duke University the other day. She informs me that, when about to meet with one of the professors there, she perused the comics that were posted on his door, and came upon a certain familiar Top Ten list. This, in and of itself, wasn't so surprising. The list has circulated the internet a few times before I ever got it, and did so a few more times after I posted it for an International Women's Day event last year (side note: March 8 is right around the corner again. To learn more about International Women's Day, follow this link), and it subsequently appeared in an edited form in the Christian Century. What was surprising was that the list was credited to this blog. Once again, I'm amazed at the recognition that particular piece got. I wish I could take proper credit, but as I've said earlier, I got that from Dr. David Scholer, and he himself didn't actually write it, but got it elsewhere. Each of us has made an edit or two to fit our own purpose or context, and no doubt this will continue elsewhere. Anyway, this helped my friend to make a connection with the professor (whom she had not previously met), and I'm certainly happy about that.

While driving to work with my wife this morning, we were talking about some recent events that make it look like we're actually moving backward, rather than forward, when it comes to treating women with respect. For example, during a sermon my wife had to listen to while serving as a Teaching Assistant in a Homiletics class, one person made several particularly sexist comments that needed to be addressed, one smugly suggesting that his wife "didn't yet know" that certain housekeeping-related wedding gifts were intended more for her than for him. For another example, one of the contestants on last night's Survivor, while going off on a tirade, berated certain men for being too "sensitive" and specifically said that it was behavior that he'd previously seen or expected only in women. Let me tell you, his quickly adding "no offense" to his remarks did absolutely nothing to lessen the offensiveness of them.

Most people simply do not realize how deeply ingrained some of these sexist attitudes are. I can hear the responses already: "but men and women are different." Yes, they are. That does not make it acceptable to make statements about a person's behavior on the basis of that person's gender. If you are berating someone for behavior, specifically calling attention to the fact that you expect that behavior in women, how does that not berate women in general (even if said behavior is more common to women, which is debatable)?

I wish I could offer some kind of "magic solution" to this problem, but obviously it's not that simple. But I would definitely encourage people to stand up against people who make sexist statements like these. It's just not right, and only proves how far we still have to go before people are truly accepted for their own talents and abilities, rather than for expected stereotypes based solely on their gender.

Grid Blog for Int'l Women's Day: Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

Today is International Women's Day, and several of us on the blogosphere have been asked to post something today to commemorate the event. Because I have a few readers who may not have been regular readers of this blog when I first posted this list several months ago, a repost seemed appropriate. To use the same disclaimers as before, I'm a man seeking ordination (someday) myself, and so I'm quick to note that this is all tongue-in-cheek. I'm also quick to note that this is not my list, but something I got from a professor of mine, who didn't write it, either, but got it from the internet. He will actually be using it today, as well, as he teaches a course entitled "Women, the Bible, and the Church" here at the seminary (which my wife is Teaching Assistant for!). This list has made the rounds in a few forms over the past several years. I've taken the liberty of making a couple of small edits from the form in which I got it.

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained (think David Letterman)

10. A man's place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Does what you see here interest you? Subscribe to this feed for regular updates!

Reflections on the Death of the TNIV

I was more than a little dismayed when I learned last week that the TNIV--my favored translation for some time now--was being discontinued.  I've commented on a few of the other blogs that have discussed this issue already, but consciously wanted to wait a little bit before weighing in on the matter here.

On one hand, I'm a bit angry.  Even if this decision isn't being made explicitly out of deference to the anti-gender-equality crowd (and, let's be honest, even though gender-oriented language only represents a small fraction of the actual changes in the TNIV when compared to the NIV--less than 30%--this is where most of the controversy has been centered), such a move cannot help but be seen as a victory by these people, and I really don't want to give them the satisfaction.

I also have an even more selfish reason for being upset.   The timing.  The announcement about the discontinuation of the TNIV came on September 1st (note: it's in the video at about 15:20), the day after I publicly announced my e-book offering a "modern English" version of the 1666 work "Women's Speaking Justified," which uses the TNIV for its Scripture references, a choice I made specifically because (as I state in the introduction) "I find that it speaks most clearly to the modern reader without introducing too many interpretive elements that might serve to draw the reader’s attention away from what the Scripture text itself says."  Articles like the one done at the Christianity Today blog calling the handling of the release of the TNIV a "mistake" (especially the earlier version of the post which was less specific) undermine that assertion (which I still stand by).

But whether or not a Bible translation is "good" really shouldn't depend on whether the end result (that is, what we read in English) reflects modern attitudes on gender-inclusive language.  Rather, the question should be "does this translation accurately convey the original text to the modern reader?"  If a text really was intended to refer only to males, using language in the translation that makes it appear that the text also referred to females is inaccurate, and thus inappropriate.  On this, there's room for plenty of healthy debate.  A Greek or Hebrew word may well have been male-specific in its original instance, but if the context indicates that it may have been used to refer not just to males specifically, some folks would argue that one should nonetheless retain the "maleness" of the original so as not to make an extra interpretive leap that the English-only readers don't have the resources to know has been made on their behalf.  Others (myself included) would argue for being more inclusive, so as not to send the signal that the original text was "exclusive" when it may not have actually been so.  Anti-gender-inclusive translation scholar Wayne Grudem himself concedes, for example, that "accuracy is improved" by translating the Greek word αδελφοι as "brothers and sisters" (instead of the more literal "brothers") in some instances.¹  But I confess that I'm definitely a bit mistrustful when I hear people like Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), promise to make "a complete review of every gender-related change that we have made since the publication of the 1984 edition."  Why single that point out, and only that point, if not to signal that the CBT is backpedaling on the gender-inclusive language specifically?  How is this not a signal that the right wing of this debate is controlling the outcome?  But, again, if the original text really doesn't allow for the inclusive interpretation....

What I'm really against isn't the potential loss of some "gender-inclusive" language (especially if the text doesn't actually warrant it), but against the notion that a translation philosophy that pays attention to the fact that modern language has changed on this matter is somehow invalid.  Many modern English-speakers simply do not read "man" as including both males and females anymore.  A translation that recognizes this fact should not be condemned simply for doing so.

But, at the end of the day, one item should be made more clear than, perhaps, has been thus far.  Although the designation "Today's New International Version" (TNIV) is no longer going to be used, the work of the translation is not being abandoned altogether.  Rather, the CBT is simply reversing its decision to leave the NIV (not updated since 1984) and the TNIV as separate branches, and are bringing those lines back together into a "new" NIV (currently referred to as NIV 2011). It's worth noting that most translations, including the NIV and TNIV, have been updated since their original release.  This can be quickly demonstrated even without pointing to each individual change simply by observing copyright notices.  The NIV, for example, lists "1973, 1978, 1984" noting that incremental changes were made each of those years.  These did not necesitate a new "other than NIV" designation.  Also, indications are that the NIV 2011 itself will actually be referred to simply as "NIV" when it is actually published.  Perhaps this will ultimately be a way to introduce "gender-accurate" language (where it is warranted!) without the controversy that the TNIV had.  If so, this will actually be a good thing.

---

¹Wayne Grudem, What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations? Copyright 1997 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. p. 18.