A conversation…

A friend from ACC posted some thoughts from his studies at an Eastern Seminary.  It applied to a course I am taking at my seminary.  I posted on the class discussion forums.  Here are the responses so far….my professor posted last, I think you can tell the difference:

My post:

Here is what he posted on his xanga:

i had my first taste of true feminist theology a few weeks back when i read this book  (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1592449735/). it was definitely a discomforting text in the sense that it has challenged my perception of the Bible and how the Bible can or should be read.

take for example that most favorite subject of mother’s day sermons, proverbs 31. now if we are willing to dive into all the historical social constructions built into the text, here is how one theologian re-reads those “esteeming” verses:

The victim is conscientized through socialization that it is the divine expectation for her to behave in such a manner. In the case of women, this experience oppresses them severely, since they already live as if they are the private property of their husbands. The elements of oppression found in Prov. 31:10-31 are: (1) women must keep themselves busy weaving clothing not only for the entire family but also for sale to merchants; (2) women must bring food by whatever means, since the reference is to merchants who normally earn by cheating; (3) women must wake up early and go to sleep late at night because they must be engaged in hard work throughout the day; (4) women must work in the field to produce; and (5) women must look after the family’s needs. A man can earn credit and respect by his very birth, but a woman must earn it by hard work. She is worthless by her very being. Other forms of violence also follow from such lack of worth. (Baltazar 58)

two options are immediately obvious to me: (a) reject this angle of reading, but then also deny how the Bible has participated in oppressing and perpetuating violence against women for millenia, or (b) accept this reading as valid, but then reframe how i understand the authority of scripture. in this sense, i’m glad i have a few more years to sort it out. i’m looking forward to a break when i can just think.
I responded:

Just curious where in Proverbs 31 do we find the idea “A man can earn credit and respect by his very birth, but a woman must earn it by hard work.”

These verses don’t jive with Baltazar’s reading of the text:
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.

25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

Oppression? I see charity (v.20), strength and dignity (v. 25), wisdom (v. 26), guidance (v. 26) and freedom (v. 30)

Another thought; which Bible caused men to oppress women in the East, in places like China? Is mysogyny and racism, solely a white Male European’s activity?

He responded:
and to give a broad and insufficient answer to some of the comments from the last post– i cannot engage the biblical texts since i would be a poor spokesperson for feminist theology, however, i believe the starting points are different. they would look at the results of our theology and note that christian theology does not equip women with the tools to resist violence, rather perpetuates it by demanding women to submit to the tyranny of men. while we may counter with the verses of how men should love, etc, history betrays this excessively optimistic portrait. christian men (and men of all faith traditions) have and continue to abuse women with little correction from their faith. rather than evangelize the same old message, feminists demand that new theology is needed since the fruits of our current and past theology are unacceptable.

My last response:
Interesting idea: “feminists demand that new theology is needed since the fruits of our current and past theology are unacceptable.” I think women’s rights have advanced considerably more in the Judeo-Christian world from which these Feminist Theologians are able to study and come up with their theories. How many such women were nurtured under the Taliban?

Your last post seemed to say that you were buying into Feminist theology. Just wanted to encourage you to be as good as the Bereans were and search the scripture to see if what they [feminist theologian] say is true. Recently the Presisdent of Miami University admitted to not seeing the fight footage because she didn’t want to be influenced by the facts (that was all over the commentary in between games today on the television). I guess I wonder how much eisegesis is occurring in Fem. Theology…which actually Fem. Theology is not solely the view of the book you read. There seem to be different camps…

any thoughts?

Response 1:

Your Friend Wrote:

They would look at the results of our theology and note that christian theology does not equip women with the tools to resist violence, rather perpetuates it by demanding women to submit to the tyranny of men. while we may counter with the verses of how men should love, etc, history betrays this excessively optimistic portrait. christian men (and men of all faith traditions) have and continue to abuse women with little correction from their faith. rather than evangelize the same old message, feminists demand that new theology is needed since the fruits of our current and past theology are unacceptable.
Response: I have two points for thought: (1) Christian Theology does give women tools by which they can “resist violence” that has been perpetuated against them by men. For example, the creation of both man and woman in the image of God gives a dignity to both men and women. It is interesting that the Bible bases a lot on the fact that people are created in God’s image: In Genesis 9, God forbids murder based on this fact. Also, in James 3:9-10, James cautions believers not to curse other people precisely because they “have been made in God’s likeness.” So, can we not take this as a powerful weapon against violence and disrespect toward women, who also have been created in God’s likeness?

(2) Your friend says that Christian Theology is has not given women the tools needed to “resist violence” because of the poor examples of men within the Christian tradition as well as men in all other traditions. I respond: First, is it appropriate to call Christian Theology inadequate simply because men in the past have failed to live up to the teachings of the Bible? Furthermore, is it right to assume that the Bible teaches sexism simply because men in the past have used the Bible to validate disrespect and violence toward women? Second, if men from all traditions and throughout history, as your friend says, have treated women harshly, then doesn’t this imply that the problem is in men rather than in the Bible or in Christian Theology.

Like I said, this is just some food for thought. Enjoy.

Response 2

If post-modern hermeneutical methods were truly more concerned for the truth of the matterthan for their agendas, we might have some semblance of a meaningful discussion.  Since they are agenda driven, feminists, especially the radical versions, would simply say, “So what?!” to any rational, biblically-based response that we might present against their misappropriation of the Scriptures (I’m not even touching whatever their misanthropy they are manifesting or the legitimacy of their claims to oppression).  Therefore, on the mattter of their misappropriation of the Scriptures to make their case, all I can say is this:

A: Feminist hermeneutical approaches to the Bible (especially radical versions) are unintelligent – demonstrated by their utter lack of respect for the testimony of the Scriptures.

B: I prefer intelligent argumentation that has a shred of respect for the source from which it argues, the Bible.

C: Therefore, I do not prefer (and thus, reject) Fem…

D-Z: OH, (to quote a certain philosopher) THEY’RE SO WRONG-HEADED!

I’m such a rogue!  Thanks Ben and William.  You guys are far more diplomatic, respectful, and intelligent.

Response 3:

I find merit in all three of the responses put forward thus far.

If I have anything to add to the discussion, it is this: What one gets from scripture depends in large degree on what assumptions one takes to scripture. It can be used for oppressive purposes by one who approaches it with certain assumptions; so also it can be used for liberative purposes by one who approaches it with other assumptions. Here, of course, the question of assumptions becomes paramount; which ones ought we to approach scripture with? It seems to me that the assumptions which undergird a properly Christian reading of the text do not lead to the oppression of women (or the poor or those in the racial minority or any other socio-politically disenfranchised group). To read Prov 31 as oppressing women is to read it through a veil of assumptions which are themselves antithetical to the faith. Surely, the scriptures–and certain passages in Ephesians come to mind here–advocate submission. But, of course, the submission to which all Christians–not just those who happen to be women–are called is that modelled by Christ Himself in both His becoming incarnate and His giving Himself up on the cross for our sakes. So it is true that scripture calls us to self-abnegation; but such sacrifice comes in virtue of the call to walk the path our Lord Himself walked, not in virtue of whether we happen to be male or female, rich or poor, light-skinned or dark-skinned.

So is the Christian woman called to self-abnegation? Yes, indeed–no more so, however, than the Christian man.

Best wishes,