The purpose of this forum is to facilitate communication and mutual support and edification among those who strive toward gender justice in Churches of Christ. If you would like to join the forum, send an e-mail (including your first and last name) from your primary address to forum@gal328.org.
Hi all! Haven't had much time to post recently on any discussion lists with the forced outage at the plant (during the hottest part of the summer -- that's not a good thing -- actual lost sales of one reactor off line (not counting the repair costs) is more than $1.5 million/day! Add in repair costs and the plant management has cold sweats and nightmares!!!
I have some good news to report in a couple of areas!
1st. I have been able to interest one of our elders at Granbury in reading and privately studying Thomas Robinson's "A Community Without Barriers," although he is quick to say that there is no time in sight that he thinks he will be able to get a gender study into the calendar for the members in general. I'll be giving him a nice 3-ring binder on Sunday with the study along with some articles I printed off. According to him there are presently too many internal problems right now in our 900 member congregation with changing worship styles, moving away from legalism, etc, but it is a big toe (not a foot yet) in the door! And of course I have told him when they decide to do a study--Call Me! I am available!
2nd. A while back I wrote about the problems and frustrations my oldest daughter was having with getting the ministerial certification letter signed by the eldership for the IRS to certify her under the ministerial exemption. It had gone to the point that she was looking for another job behind the scenes and had a couple of churches interested. Well, there has been a change in that status and it was a real surprise to all of us, especially Shannon. She apparently managed to find the right elder to talk to about what was happening (that the IRS deadline was upon her) and it was immediately brought back before the entire eldership. They discussed it thoroughly and with the help of one "very senior in age" elder, all elders agreed to sign the letter if Shannon agreed that if she was asked to do any of the items mentioned in that letter, she would do so without hesitation and to the best of her ability with the understanding that she was not usurping their authority but doing so under their authority. They had her affirm each IRS requirement to them that she would willing do whatever the elders asked when asked. That "very elderly" elder made the statement that "we keep preaching to these people and trying to get them under the water. I don't care if it's a male or female who puts them under, as long as we get them there! I move that the rest of you elders sign that letter!!!" Several elders had already agreed to sign the letter but there were several very "conservative" (for lack of a better word) holdouts that the comment was directed at! The letter is signed and on its way to the IRS! In the process of all of this, they agreed to a change in how Shannon is paid in reference to insurance. The change will give her a nice boost in desperately needed income since her husband recently changed jobs and will receive excellent insurance benefits shortly. Of course it didn't hurt that the elders were already looking at all the money they were paying out for insurance for her and that this change will save the church alot of money at the same time!
Everything just came together all at once. Isn't it amazing how God works sometimes when you least expect it.
Grace to you and peace.
Wiley
:::posted by Wiley on 7/31/2003 07:34:33 PM
The first and last time I was asked to speak at a Ladies Day in my area, I questioned the value and logic of isolating the men and women through seperate retreats and lectureships. There are no annual lectureships open to all in our area. It is interesting that we spend nearly all of our creative fuel in discovering "dynamic" ways of building up the invisible wall with seperate spiritual meetings between men and women.
I think I'm a little older than most of you and I can remember when women actually had more room to move in church. My impression is that the phenomena of increased seperation redoubled in the late 70's and early 80's in the Church of Christ with the "dynamic speaker" movement -- a response to TV evangelists -- and seemed to inspire men to train to be Billy Sunday wannabes. Then Iron John came out, thanks a bunch to poet Robert Bly. We were no longer peculiar people! From the cradle to the grave, Church of Christ men were trend-setters in Men's Movement ideology which is really just another self-victimization theory. Naturally, the church was primed for the stupid Mars/Venus chatter which was quoted from the pulpit at the moment it came off the press. It confirmed the wall before "the world" and protected it.
Chad, its a couple of years old, but you might want to have a look at Wendy Kaminer's "Sleeping With Extraterrestrials." She briefly addresses the idea that women need male spiritual guidance based on sexual differences and describes it as just another age-old case of junk theology meets junk science -- "a celebration of subjectivity," -- her description of the marriage partners in New Age logic. A different take, huh?
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 7/31/2003 12:05:00 PM
Chad,
I also have this struggle with women's classes. On the one hand studies have shown that women tend to be more assertive and involved in women only groups. For whatever reason women, in general, tend to behave like a minority in mixed gender groups. They subordinate their opinions to men are reluctant to speak up, and in general take a back seat. (These of course are generalities and plenty of women break this mold.) On the other hand keeping separate groups seems to say that there is a good reason, other than cultural conditioning, for women and men not working together and learning together and the "gender gap" gets wider. Also in my experience many of these groups focus on how to be a good wife and mother. This bothered me not only as a single adult but not bothers me as a married woman.
I do agree that marriage is important and should be given proper attention, however I do not agree that it should be the subject of a year long bible study. There is so much in the bible that I want to delve into and spending months working through one person's theories on how to make a marriage Godly is not something I need or want, and yet the opinion seems to be that all women need and want this kind of study. Perhaps it is because they have also bought into the idea that a woman's place is at home raising the kids while the husband makes the money and leads the family.
Tom- That book was recommended to my husband and I wondered if it was that type of book. (It was a "Every man needs to read this book" recommendation).
I think it is the modern day version of the puritan sitting on separate sides of the church building. These women's classes and men's classes make sure we are clear on just how different we are so that we don't attempt to meet in the middle. The women's bible and the men's bible (and the couples bible) All draw lines of distinction between the genders instead of showing how we all come together in Christ.
I have an inclusive language NIV and I love the wording. It recognizes that in modern usage the masculine is no longer heard as gender neutral and therefore includes feminine or plural in the texts that clearly are meant to include all people in them. I love that I never notice the gender inclusive language unless I am listening to someone read from the older version of the NIV. Then the lack of it just jumps out at me and startles me. I'm getting a bit off track but I do think that the words that we use are tied into our perceptions of gender in a profound way.
A bit of a ramble inspired by Chad's ramble...
Peace,
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 7/29/2003 09:35:17 PM
Chad,
Agreed. Our Wednesday night men's class (gender-separated classes are another concept I struggle with, going back and forth on whether it's good or not) has picked up the book "Wild at Heart," by John Eldredge. It is of the grunt-while-killing-a-bear-with-your-hands ilk, I think. Tragically reactionary, written by a man who seems primarily motivated by nostalgia for his boyhood on a ranch in eastern Oregon.
While John strikes a truth that men should not mold themselves in the image of women, he misses another truth that Rooster Cogburn is not the right pattern, either. And he appears to miss that men can learn much from relationship with women, as is strongly witnessed by the effect of Lois and Eunice on Timothy. At one point he says men are either wild stallions or geldings; I think he misses the beauty and power, not to mention value, of the trained stallion. He seems to justify men doing whatever they want in the name of being men as God created them, though I'm sure he'd deny that.
It is a common human failing to long for the way it was, even if the "way it was" has been embellished to the point of being a fiction. So churches have idealized the middle-class nuclear family of the 50's and 60's, with Dad working in the office and "leading" his home, while Mom stays at home and raises the kids. The reality is that that was a small part of society in a limited historical period in the U.S., and was never the truth for most people in most times and places. Yet that has been made the holy pattern that is longed for by so many, and causes so many feelings of guilt.
OK, I'll take a deep breath. I could also go the other way and rant about our materialistic, power-seeking society, but I won't. At least not today :-)
I think Jesus showed us how to be men. He was not afraid to be seen weeping, he welcomed children, enjoyed a good wedding, and could still drive the moneychangers from the temple. And he told his disciples not to squabble over who would lead, but to lead in service. I'll take that over Dirty Harry any day.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 7/29/2003 01:49:21 PM
To add to my previous post, I pulled this off the website ad for the particular men's ministry I had in mind:
"There is a battle raging! While Christian men sit idly by and try to be "good people", Satan is still wreaking havoc on the world God intended for us to live in. God created us in His image. How can we sit by and watch as more teenagers than ever before fall victim to drugs, alcohol, suicide and pre-marital sex? Surely God had something better in mind for marriage when he called a man to leave his parents than for the ultimate goal to just be a golden anniversary. Surely Fatherhood means more than trying to pay for college. And we are certain that God's definition of manhood means more than our anatomy. A little boy is created for adventure, he runs through open doors, he explores caves, he hits stuff and makes noises long before he says words. God made us to be adventurous - let's answer that call as men the way we did when we were boys: let's accept the challenge to reclaim our neighborhood for God rather than keeping to ourselves as Satan continues the rout."
:::posted by Chad on 7/29/2003 01:39:16 PM
Ugh. Okay folks, I have a thesis I'd like to hear some discussion on. I will state it more boldly (and baldly) than perhaps I mean it, so please just consider this, for the moment, to be a thought-experiment. Here it is:
"In addition to the well-documented negative effects on females, patriarchy is also harmful to males. One can see this in the Church especially through contemporary "men's ministries." Such ministries, if not also accompanied by grunts, burgers, and "accountability partners," almost always portray what men supposedly *are* by means of military imagery, be it the language of war and conquest (always "for God") or through the language of a supposedly holy sexual purity (controlling the Sartrean gaze of desire, not to mention one's hands). Such ministries are reactionary and oppressive of both men and women. They posit that to be a "godly man" means to "lead" your family "spiritually" - which translates, at best, to a form of complementarian hierarchy (itself still a form of patriarchy). These ministries do not actually help men learn to relate to each other or the women in their lives, nor do they provide an understanding of the God-given sexuality of males or females."
So...thoughts? Just to give a little context, I just recently found out about a new men's ministry at a complementarian church in our siblinghood, where several people I know attend. As a man, I would not attend this particular ministry. It would force upon me a definition of "man" to which I don't subscribe.
I shall end this post with a nice grunt - argh.
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 7/29/2003 09:01:12 AM
Hey, Patty's husband, Jason here.
First off, Patty's out today, so I get to answer: we're due Jan. 18th. Baby's looking good on the ultrasound so we're very thankful so far.
I'd also like to ask for prayers on the lesson that a couple of us will be teaching on the egalitarian issue as an example of scriptural study method. In particular, I'm really hoping to keep it loving and as non-devisive as possible. I can't stand the thought of driving people away or causing discord, but we do believe that this needs to be discussed.
I mentioned that I was studying a book titled "Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by Dr. William J. Webb a few months ago. Well, I've read it all once (and large parts twice) and I've got to say, its great. I said that I'd present a report when I got done. Well, it's not fully fleshed out, but I presented the hermeneutical approach to our small group. Since I was more focused on the approach than the women's issue, you'll have to read the book to get a lot of the details, but I do have a book report on our home page. Its a real good book, I highly reccommend it. I've even read a review by a complementarian group of academics and they couldn't find much to fault it on.
Anyway, an elder, a few interested guys, and I have been studying the book every couple of weeks for several months now. Its really helped us arrive at a conceptual framework for what we'd intuitively felt. Based on this, the elder has encouraged us to adapt it to a Sunday morning class.
Anyway, please pray for our class and that we present this is a Christlike manner. Sorry for the rambling post, I'll blame it on impending fatherhood. :-)
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 7/26/2003 04:18:41 PM
Patty, I feel where you are. We have been there. It is more difficult to stay and work through relationships and situations but it is more rewarding in the end. I think where you are now as a church family is exciting and God can take you wherever he wants to take you. You will be so surprised. He is good at that.
I was so excited to hear that you are expecting. When? I am a labor and delivery nurse...so I am always intensely interested in everything that has to do with the birth process. Let me know if I can answer any questions or you just need encouragement.
May God continue to bless you with change.
grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 7/25/2003 11:49:40 PM
Hi everyone,
It has been a while since I posted on here. There is a lot going on in my life but I just had to share some good news on the gender justice front.
As soon as it can be arranged some others and I will make up a group that will plan our Sunday morning worship services. A couple of our goals will be more inclusion of all different people in the worship services and a more cohesive service over all. This past Sunday in particular was less than perfect and the leadership would like to avoid that again, esp since it made a very bad impression on a first time visitor (mother of a newly baptized teen) who will probably never return. Our summers never seem to run all that smoothly...
Also, my husband, Jason, has shared with the board that he is supposed to co-teach a class on how to read the bible. The emphasis being on reading and understanding context and how to apply that to today. That was to be a precursor to a gender class. Well the elder he has been working on that with now thinks that they should instead teach this class focused specifically on gender issues in the bible. This class is planned to begin with the winter quarter.
For those who don't know our congregation has recently lost our paid preacher and we are searching for direction. It is a pretty exciting time to be here and scary also as we put the idea of disbanding out on the table (very unlikely but it needed to be discussed) as well as finding a totally new place to locate our meeting place (definitely on the table), which will mean reaching out to a completely different local community than the one we have served for the past 20 years.
We (my husband and I) have thought so much about where God wants us. We have looked into moving and being ready to do what God wants us to do. Suddenly it is looking like what he wants is for us to stay where we are, at least for now. I must say, that is more difficult that moving and starting over in some ways. Staying means we need to keep working on relationship with our church and sometimes that is more effort than I can muster. It also means continuing to be far away from family and that is becoming more stressful a thought now that our family is growing from 2 into 3. But God is good. He has indeed brought us fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters to help us and encourage us.
Thanks for being my long distance family in the struggle.
Patty
PS. I have really enjoyed reading these discussions that are hear lately but have nothing of value to add to them so I just read and learn. Thanks for being willing to discuss this in "public." So that the rest of us can eavesdrop.
:::posted by Patty on 7/24/2003 11:11:49 PM
Chad,
Thanks so much for taking the time to explain your suspicions. I respect your historical training as well as your reluctance to embrace dominant themes in society and culture. I suppose that most of us approach our theology, in some sense, through our vocation. I am an artist and, as far back as my memory will take me, I have approached my understanding of the world and God and the Word of God through my vocation. So, it might be a surprise that I am mostly in agreement with you.
Words are the problem, I think. The words I used “universal case” even “history” can mean very different things to the historian and to the artist. In our age, academics have easy permission to turn perfectly useful words like “universal” into slogan and rhetoric for this or that purpose. In addition, words are bought-out by corporations and industries so quickly that the meanings and truths they once carried change between mealtimes. (But this board is not about that, either.) Words are the answer, too. We need words that have value, that resist classification by the disciplines and the reformers ... words that escape the insufficiency of reductionist thought. Story, I think, is the answer. For instance, the word “justice” has been so politicized that it has lost its meaning. But Christians can turn to a story about Jesus in the house of Simon in order to visualise, learn and teach divine “justice.” If Jesus could have explained “justice” to generations by simply saying the word, the New Testament would be printed on one page. As it is, we Christians use words to explain what words can’t explain. These words are called stories ... divine stories.
As an artist, the only truth I can understand or express is, logically, defined as metaphor, and to most educated people a metaphor is an aesthetical lie. But when I look in scripture and see the metaphor repeated over and over again by different cultures in different generations, I can’t dismiss it as chimera, a passing enchantment. I have to see it as a sign ... an elaborate scheme of divine scale.
Certainly, stories can be abused as readily as words – and word studies are important to support stories – But, historically (sorry!) stories ride the crest of time with less degradation than words. I think this is the first reason why I see God as both feminine and masculine. The whole of scripture opens this up to me as a logical way to perceive God.
I feel that this answer to your hard inquiries has been way too simplistic, Chad, and I apologise for that.
Be well and at peace.
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 7/24/2003 02:18:00 AM
Hi everyone, sorry for being such a stranger - lots going on these days. But I wanted to just offer a quick response to Carmen's answers to my questions from awhile back.
Carmen, I should first say I'm glad you found my questions hard! I take that as a compliment. :) You asked whether I opposed the study of archetypes when it comes to the scriptures, and if so, what my suspicions were. Without going into too much detail about my hermeneutical commitments, I would answer that I'm not opposed to reading the scriptures with an eye toward archetypes that may be present. But I am suspicious of the kind of metaphysical assumptions that are most often part and parcel of such a reading. That suspicion comes from two different but parallel directions. The first is from my historical training. In doing history, you find that what is often claimed to be "universal" by some individual or group is really just contingent, a product of time, change, custom, and narrow assumption. Human beings are notorious for projecting their own experience onto that of others, and given what we now understand about the universe in general, I think we should be cautious in talking about "universal cases." For how this might specifically relate to the study of gender in history, take a look at Joan Scott's _Gender and the Politics of History_, to which I am indebted. Second, I would locate my suspicions as part of the more widespread theological and philosophical critique of the foundations of modern society, with the "modern" referring to the efforts of Enlightenment-influenced modes of thinking, storytelling, and political action that seek to control, contain, and master certain spheres, if not all, of human life. But that discussion is probably a little off topic for this board.
I would also like to say that we should be wary of taking at face value the pronouncements of “official” texts that come down to us as indicators of popular belief and practice. In other words, just because Tertullian or the rabbis of the Talmud (for example) had certain views in regards to what God had ordained for women and then read biblical texts in certain ways to legitimate such views and assumptions, does not necessarily mean that a) people of their time blindly and willingly followed or agreed with such views or b) that such readings constitute “good” or “warranted” readings of biblical texts, in their or any age. I guess in part what I’m getting at is that I don’t find the “conspiracy of authority” reading of history to be very convincing, if for no other reason than it takes away the agency of the people who actually made real life decisions in circumstances that were less than desirable. Sometimes such views are adopted not based on evidence, but on our own failure to provide alternative means of resistance to injustice, oppression, and tyranny.
Obviously these are hard, complex questions…but certainly worth the asking.
Blessings,
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 7/23/2003 03:20:15 PM
I just had to share some more of our progress with you. This morning Ann prayed the closing prayer. The sermon had been about anger and how there are times that anger is just and that it should come out of our passion for God and his people. Ann said afterwards to me that our anger was good and is what helped bring about change in our church family and how we operate. Someone has to push or nothing will change. The women in your churches will still be sitting silently in their pew and so many will be missing their voices and what a shame it would be to never to get to hear them. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 7/20/2003 01:43:27 PM
We expect the twelve year old boy to be in subjection to his Mom, yet we allow him to speak in church, while telling her that, because of her sex, for her do to so would be usurpation of male authority.
And back to Carmen's hermaphrodite. Here is a case where distinctions between sex and gender become interesting. My understanding is that parents of such a rare child make a choice to raise that child as either a male or a female. In this case sex is ambiguous, but gender is not. This reminds me of "Pat" on Saturday Night Live.
Given that the parents choose to raise the child as one gender or the other--possibly, but not necessarily, following up with cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy--does that human decision determine whether it is acceptable before God for that person to lead or not? Or does any ambiguity disqualify a person? If so, then why was the only missionary to Ethiopia we know of in NT times a eunuch? Or are the arguments that "eunuch" was a title and not a physical condition made to try to disambiguate the situation?
Oh what tangle webs we weave, when first we practice to dominate each other (pax, Sir Walter Scott).
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 7/18/2003 05:13:55 PM
Consider, too, that the twelve year-old boy-man leader is another nuance of patriarchy that is riddled with flaws. Many reformist rabbai believe that the bar mitzvah was engineered to counter menarche when a girl is officially a woman (Generally, at twelve, more girls capable leaders than boys. If you doubt this, visit a middle school. Boys tend to rise to leadership in the last two years of high-school. This is why it strikes me as so sad that most youth leaders are men and focused on masculine persuasion and activities and developing male spiritual leaders. There is no communal support for girls to recognise or reach their leadership potential.) Anyway you figure it, it can't be denied that the focus of leadership has for thousands of years been "down there." I think that Jesus was lifted up on the cross to cauterise the dynamic of sexual opposition in religion and, consequently, in culture and bring balance with the gift of the Holy Spirit of God.
:::posted by Carmen on 7/18/2003 01:07:33 PM
Yep, Carmen, that's an interesting one! You mention a hermaphrodite, what about a eunuch? What about a sterile male? Is it male anatomy, or the male chromosome? Both? Neither? Throw in the fact that first century science was unaware of genetics, at least in the modern sense.
And lest someone object that this is merely academic, and not likely to be a real issue in reality, let me use another analogy: In the software development world, when we are testing a new program for flaws we feed it the most extreme inputs we can think of. If it can handle those, it's likely to handle the normal stuff. If it can't handle them, then there is a flaw (bug) somewhere.
I think we can use the hermaphrodite or the eunuch as test cases for arguments on gender roles; we find that very quickly most of them collapse into absurdity (not to mention Unix programmer jokes :-) ). If leadership (and what is leadership?) is a matter of anatomy or genetics, then how perfect does the leader have to be? Does he have to be "without spot or blemish?" What if he had a vasectomy? Testicular cancer? It quickly gets silly, which indicates that the initial patriarchal leadership argument is flawed.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 7/18/2003 10:22:25 AM
Inappropriate!? Tom, what can be more appropriate than letting your hair down a bit on a gender-justice website! Ok, that’s it. No more cliché’s! I promise. Ok... So, you want a rubber bullet? (“rubber bullet” is not going back on my promise because its your cliché not mine :) Well, I don’t have one. But I do have a stun gun for ya … What does a patriarchal leadership do with hermaphrodites? Is it the absence of male anatomy that puts a person on the sidelines? Or, is it the presence of female anatomy, hmmm? I’m looking forward to your thoughts! From your posts and essay, I get the feeling that you’re onto something, too.
Though it is definitely a player, the gender impasse is deeper than justice theology. That’s easy to see since Pepperdine, ACU, Harding, Lipscomb have not, “in the spirit of reconciliation" marked the beginning of the end of an era, by featuring a black woman (or any color of woman) minister as a keynote speaker at a Church of Christ lectureship. It’s not about color or nation of origin. Sure, prejudice and misogyny are almost identical in the way they are expressed, but racial prejudice has been an issue for only a few hundred years while misogyny is cross-cultural and has been around since Eden. Misogyny is the prototype for all forms of hate -- that's why it's so difficult to surrender it.
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 7/18/2003 02:43:00 AM
And all I can think of is Bambi. "Fly!" "No, don't fly! Whatever you do, don't fly!" The sound of wings, then, BAM! And my (formerly) little boy saying sadly, "She told her not to fly."
:::posted by Vicki on 7/18/2003 12:05:32 AM
Oh no, now my serum cliche levels are too high! All silliness aside--OK, I never really put all silliness aside, it's my spiritual gift to make jokes and puns at inappropriate times :-) --I think you're on to something, Carmen. Sometimes the metaphors with which we express ourselves put a spin on our comprehension. And we need to couch truths in metaphors appropriate to the culture.
So what are effective, certified organic metaphors for gender justice that fit into mainline Churches of Christ? I don't think there is a silver bullet here, but maybe at least we can find a rubber bullet or two.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 7/17/2003 08:18:02 PM
Far be it from me to take the wind out from beneath Jo Swezey’s wings, but if I may be so bold, I think the subtleties of this whole rousing dialogue might be traced to my comparative between Chicken McNuggets and KFC (My book club decided to read Fast Food Nation this month … can you tell? -- I don’t read books, I mainline them) But since simile plays so well here, let me just say, we can talk about gender-justice till the cows come home, but the pot can’t call the kettle black forever. Our hammer of justice will keep cutting us off at the knees until we see how God pulled Woman up by her own army-bootstraps. Don’t misread my mixed metaphors! Gender justice is a wonderful thing as long as we keep in mind that it is the tail not the dog … the cart not the horse. And women’s full participation in institutional church life is certainly marketable to a demographic, but to reach the certified organic (fundamentalist) market it needs to be horse-powered with the Word which I believe contains – even though it is buried alive in divine metaphor (you keep the sword of salvation, I’ll take the shovel!) – the final, ultimate and Christ sanctioned redemption of Woman-sin. Now, put that in your peace-pipe and smoke it … And, please, no excuses that you never inhale! :)
:::posted by Carmen on 7/17/2003 07:25:46 PM
Laying the chicks aside for a moment, i just wanted to comment about the new Blogger. I don't like it. (Does that mean I don't like change?!? ACK!!) OK. I feel better now.
:::posted by Vicki on 7/17/2003 04:53:42 PM
" . . . the roosters strut and crow, and they all end up as chicken and dumplings. "
I'm sorry, I really had to laugh at that, and it did remind me of Chicken Run. :o)
What happens to the little chicks with no examples of flyers? (not to be confused with FRYERS). It's an eye-opening analolgy, thanks, Vic.
S.
:::posted by Shelly on 7/17/2003 03:01:32 PM
Vicki,
I'm sorry, but Jo Swezey's quote made me think of the claymation movie "Chicken Run." LOL. But it is to the point. And, as in the movie, after people have been slapped down too many times, they tend to quit trying.
Julie,
Maybe I could rephrase your question. Why are so many women -- and men -- content to peck in the dirt, when they can fly? Why are they even afraid to *talk* about flying?
The hens peck, and the roosters strut and crow, and they all end up as chicken and dumplings. Wow, that could almost pass for Hebrew wisdom literature; "chicken feed, chicken feed, all is chicken feed." :-)
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 7/17/2003 02:18:48 PM
I don't know, Julie. I just don't know.
:::posted by Vicki on 7/17/2003 12:07:47 PM
Vicki, why are so many women content to peck in the dirt when they can fly? What is about women that programs us to just follow along? Why do so many women object to flying? grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 7/17/2003 09:09:09 AM
Wings were meant to fly...
From God's Word to Women Newsletter, as told by Jo Swezey:
Several hens in a large, fenced area were contentedly picking through the dirt, clucking as they slowly wandered around. Suddenly, however, one of them realized she had wings and began flapping them. To her amazement she was propelled into the air 5 or 6 feet off the ground, when her male caretaker noticed and pulled her back down by the foot.
In sequence, two others followed suit...only to be brought down like the first one had. Finally, there was one old hen who was determined to fly over the fence to freedom. Mustering up all her strength, she flapped her wings furiously. Up and away she went, about 8 ft. high in the air. Freedom seemed imminent until her caretaker caught sight of her. Springing upward, he barely snatched her by one toe, but it was enough to bring her down too. Then, all the hens resumed picking around in the dirt, just like they did before they tried to escape. My heart was saddened.
:::posted by Vicki on 7/17/2003 02:50:35 AM
Hey! A funny thing happened. Last night, I had a look at my old Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 2. I went to retrieve an essay that was of particular interest to me and present it here for discussion. It was easy to find it since it was the only one that was heavily marked in two colors of highlighter and the margins packed with notes which I put down more than five years ago. The title is Mate, Mother, and Metaphor: Gomer and Israel in Hosea and I was stunned to see that it is the work of Timothy Willis, professor of religion at Pepperdine University!
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 7/15/2003 09:00:00 PM
Here is a good book review for Lawrence Hoffman's "Covenant of Blood". I think it is a very important read for those interested in gender studies.
http://www.rrc.edu/journal/recon63_1/prell.htm
The review is directed to a Jewish audience. I have not found a review from a Christian source and would love to see at least one. Hoffman shares his remarkable research about tranferrance of spiritual anxiety in Judaism over male and female blood, particularly following the Christian era. The circumcision rituals became more centered on the son and the father and gradually excluded the mother who had played a primary role in the ceremony. He suggests the taboo of feminine blood continued to develop in Judaism after the Christian era and was perhaps a response to the oppressive Mother-Son relationship in Christiandom as mariology gained dominance in Europe. From an art-history perspective, it is interesting that many early Mary/Christ images had Mary stiffly holding the son between her legs in the way a son is held in the circumcision ceremony. I wonder if this was offensive to Jews ... or purposely confrontational ... or intended to make a statement about the end of the father-son, exclsively male covenant? I need to research that. His work supports my observation that the spiritual paths of men and women divided at the garden with the woman's going ever more beneath the surface.
Thanks Vicki for the God's Word To Women study. I found it on the web and read the paragraphs you noted... some wonderful insight there!
:::posted by Carmen on 7/11/2003 02:10:32 AM
Tim!
I am so excited that you are “intrigued” with this idea! It is a much more technical approach than what is currently being offered by gender-justice advocates and from my studies I have found that the problems (I’m certain that you will find more problems with it than I can ever think of and I am eager to hear them) are more cultural than biblical.
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 7/08/2003 02:31:00 PM
Patty,
It is so good to hear from you! I lost you email and they changed our format here so that it was not available online.
I AM SO glad to hear how great things are going at your congregation & I am equally thrilled about our new preacher (did I tell you we hired 2?!?!?)
We, as a congregation, are praying for ya'all. Please send me an email whe you have a free minute yellyshay@msn.com.
Tim, WELCOME. I think I have missed a few other welcomes, Teressa, it's great to talk to you no matter where it may be! Love Ya!!
In Him,
Shelly
:::posted by Shelly on 7/03/2003 06:07:12 PM
I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments others had made. First, I am not familiar with the writings of Katherine Bushnell. Who publishes her stuff? Could I find it in a typical Bible bookstore? Carmen, I am very intrigued by the idea of the incarnation reconciling male and female, although I might disagree a bit over your bases for seeing different "paths" for male and female in the OT. For example, I might be in the minority here, but I do not see a message about the Son in God's words to the woman. Still, the fact that separate messages are given to the woman and the man suggests the possibility of different "paths" for them. I need to explore that more and what it would imply.
I hope everyone has a happy and safe 4th.
Tim
:::posted by Tim on 7/03/2003 01:14:34 PM
Just a quick post. I have been unable to post for quite a while and am finally back in. It seem like there were things I wanted to respond to several days ago but now I don't remember what they are.
Interesting, exciting things are happening at our congregation. Our preacher is leaving. The Elders have called the church to pray and be open to God's leading. At least one elder is pro gender justice and one is very anti. The other two are somewhere in between. We are not forming a preacher search comittee untill we have determined the direction of the congregation. Since we have had a group of men preaching for quite some time this really just means taking one out of the pool. It won't be nearly the shock that it would be in a congregation where one man does most (or all) of the preaching. Any extra prayers sent our way as we figure this out will be much appreciated. There are forces pulling in every direction and only time will tell which forces win in the end.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 7/02/2003 10:56:50 AM
Tim: I just noticed your post and I do not want to go without a brief discription of what I mean by a theology of Woman.
After the experience at the tree, Genesis 3 describes seperate encounters, responses and relationships between God and Man and God and Woman. These seperate relationships, theologies or routes to God were mended into one through Christ. I feel it is important to understand the unique history and theologies of Woman and Man prior to Christ in order to understand and map God's promise made to the woman about the Son and the prophecy God spoke to the woman concerning the man. I feel that the healing of the seperate nations of Man and Woman was a major goal of the incarnation.
Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge in this discussion! I'm anxious to have a closer look at your post in a few days.
:::posted by Carmen on 7/01/2003 01:58:07 PM
Jennifer: My take is that the metaphor of Father-Son is elevated as a result of the long-held and deeply rooted spiritual value attributed to the covenant of circumcision. Paul speaks of the divine, covenental father-son relationship so often in order to discourage dependence and trust in the human covenantal father-son relationship in Judaism and to transfer the fulfillment of that institution to Christ's blood alone. Circumcision blood had risen to the idolized status of redemptive blood with powers comparative to that of the Pascal Lamb. Prior to the Christian era the Father-Son relationship carried the power of covenant while the Mother-Son relationship did not officially exist in the Torah. Jesus the Messiah, being a virgin woman’s firstborn son, introduced the redemptive power of feminine blood to a culture that did not perceive spiritual value in womankind but was not at all opposed to the feminine nature of God (In Jewish wisdom literature the Shekhinah is explained to be the feminine aspect and the Tif’eret, the masculine and the union of the two produces sparks of meaning or illumination of the mind for those who seek wisdom in the Torah. As a Christian, that image of light immediately reminds me of the lighted heads of the male and female disciples praying together in the upper room!) So, through Christ’s virgin birth and the mother-son relationship, redemption (until Christ an exclusively male-dominated business) was now accomplished through both Man and Woman so that no one can boast.
Tom: I loved Perelandria! And I like the way you put the question about the divine attributes of male and female. This too, is a major theme that is explored by both Christian and Jewish mystics and sex is a part of that. The Spirit and the Word (like the masculine and feminine) unite or spark to make Christ reborn in us. If we focus on the Word alone we will only see the outer garment – but when we are aware of the body within, we will, like the woman who touched the outer garment of Jesus, be drawn into him and be reborn as his beloved daughter – And, no! I’m absolutely not ready for Glorietta Bay! I’m still flailing around in the comfort of the shallow waters in Mission Bay :)
Chad: Of course I’ve been avoiding your questions. They’re too hard! But I’ll try.
1) The churches are not Churches of Christ. As far as I know there are no Churches of Christ in San Diego County that endorse or practice gender-justice. Of these churches that I have witnessed (through friends who are members) back away from egalitarianism and return to some form of complementarianism and, in one case, hard-core patriarchy: one is Methodist, one is Baptist, two are Holiness. All are in the San Diego area. Each one is a long story …
2) I agree that this site is very important to Churches of Christ. We need this site and I support it. If I appear critical, it is not directed toward this site or the promotion of an egalitarian gospel message.
3) By my vague reference, “the universal case of Man and Woman” I meant to recall the rift that came between Woman and Man in the Garden which God prophesied would be redeemed through Christ and which continues to plague humankind to this day because we cannot seem to fix our eyes on the Solution which is found in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. By the way Chad, am I to understand that you are opposed to the study of archetypes in scripture? If so, I’d like to understand your suspicions. My approach to the Bible is very literary. I cannot avoid the archetypal Man and Woman in scripture. Paul taught the Adam-Jesus archetype and the scriptures are filled with such comparatives. For me, biblical archetypes reveal history and meaning rather than cloud it.
4) I don’t know anything about biblical languages. I am only aware that of the three major world religions, Christians alone hold that “Adam” represents a male person rather than humanity and the Woman in creation is less reflective of God’s image than the male. Consequently, women have been regarded as “the devil’s gateway” (Tertullian) and treated with hatred, suspicion and contempt and the feminine personality of God swept under the carpet. In most world religions Man and Woman equally compose “mankind” and reflect the divine. In the Qur’an we do not even find an “Eve”. For Jews, some explore that God is both male and female while others believe God is wholly “other” and neither male or female. When I read Genesis 1:27 I feel that I have been given a powerful message about the essence of God – one whose very image is reflected in humanity and all of creation through the physical qualities and character of male and female. Does this mean that God is male and female or that God can reach our minds – help us to comprehend the divine -- through male and female? I don’t know ... but Male and Female, for me, is a good starting place to understand God.
Chad, we have about 50 people coming over for dinner on July 4, so I will not be able to respond for a few days, but I am looking forward to more discussion. Thanks so much!
:::posted by Carmen on 7/01/2003 01:07:41 PM
Lance,
A fascinating and challenging discussion. I would like to know if Tim Willis is familiar with the works of Katherine Bushnell. In her book, "GOD'S WORD TO WOMEN", in Lesson 3, esp. para. 23-24, she addresses this male/female issue. I am interested in his opinion (as one who knows a "bit about biblical Hebrew", because I have none), of her opinion. When I first read this, I laughed. But, when I gave it time, and began connecting it to other passages, I admit (in hushed tones - one could be flogged for this kind of thinking!) that I at least allow for the possibility now. It helps more confusing passages make sense. I have not taken the time to see if this thinking is contradictory with other passages.
Thanks,
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 7/01/2003 12:59:42 PM
Welcome Tim, thanks for adding the scholarly side of this discussion. I am glad that you have joined us. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 7/01/2003 10:32:41 AM
On the Genesis thread, I'd like to publish this note from Tim Willis. He teaches Old Testament at Pepperdine.Greetings:
I am a recent lurker on this site who is very interested in the discussion on the image of God passage in Genesis 1. Since I know a bit about biblical Hebrew, I thought I'd throw in what I can about the reading there, then add a few bits of opinion.
The reading in Gen 1:26-27 is intriguing and frustrating. "And God said, Let us make man (ADAM) in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion... And God created the man (HA'ADAM) in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The frustrating parts, of course, are the switching back and forth between singular and plural, and the alternating use of the article with "man". On the first, it is curious not only that God uses a plural verb ("let them have dominion") with a singular antecedent (ADAM) in verse 26, but also that he talks about "us" making ADAM in "our image" there, while the fulfillment of this in the next verse uses the singular ("in his image"). Is ADAM created in "their" image, or in "his" image? There seems to be ambiguity about singular and plural all around. Is there some ambiguity about the singularity/plurality of God that is also shared by humans? As for the second item, this is a question that persists into the following chapters. I realize that this raises more questions, but that's what's in the text.
Now, for my two cents' worth, I think I am more in agreement with Chad here, but I would like to hear more from Carmen about a Theology of Woman. (How would that be different from a Theology of Humankind? How would separate Theologies of Man and Woman help?) My own reading of the text sees an intended distinction between Gen 1 and Gen 2 (and I'm not necessarily thinking of different authors here). I think many people in our churches read Gen 2 back into Gen 1 as an elaboration of the sixth day, and I don't think that was intended. It seems to me that the intent of Gen 1 is to describe the Big Picture, with things like major categories of celestial bodies and entire species of animals. Each of the latter is created "according to its kind," so that the (implied) "kind" of humans is that they are "like God." The point in saying "male and female", in my mind, is to say that every individual -- male or female -- is made in God's image, and should be treated as such. Gen 2 then shifts the perspective from major categories to individual relationships. Adam is naming animals (still species, but naming them assumes relationship), and Adam and Eve are viewed in a marriage relationship, not simply a human-human or even a generic male-female relationship. So, I think we are not supposed to view these accounts as sequential but complementary. Chapter 1 is about how each of us relates to any other, while Chapter 2 adds a layer to that about special relationships within families. As an aside, I think the ancient Jewish reading of ADAM in Gen 1 as an androgynous being is an attempt to read this sequentially (in other words, that ADAM is somehow split into two parts with the making of Eve); and I don't think that is supported by the text.
Well, I could say more, but I'll stop there for the moment. I look forward to the unfolding of this discussion.
Tim
:::posted by Lance on 7/01/2003 07:40:46 AM
archives
