|
Post by AustinAvery on Feb 1, 2010 15:40:00 GMT -5
No offense intended to KW (because I believe you are doing good work, be it the Lord's or not), this debate reminds me of Vonnegut's line in Cat's Cradle:
Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either. --John the narrator, chap. 4
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 1, 2010 16:26:37 GMT -5
I'm sorry you were hurt, KR. I think what you are doing is valuable and admirable. I feel a bit responsible for kicking off the atheist side of the debate, so let me express where I stand now:
I'm glad that there are people willing to reinterpret these scriptures for a better use than they've been put to by fundamentalists. This is vital to the effort to help Christian women see God as their ally rather than their prison warden.
At the same time, I have an almost traumatic reaction to reading through the intricate details that I once waded through myself. For me, attempting to reinterpret those scriptures was ultimately futile, as I felt I was struggling against what they really meant: that when I was successful, I wasn't really, because what I saw was not an actual buried truth but my own desires reflected back at me. I thought I'd convinced myself that the scriptures supported what I wanted (to be equal to men) and therefore I was wrong.
I have given up on the 'submit and obey' verses as irredeemable. That doesn't mean I think anyone else should. Nor am I trying to proselytize for atheism - but as an atheist I must say there's a lot of frustration in leaving behind the concept of the Bible as a guidebook for life and seeing others struggle with the meaning of the text - it reminds me of the time I spent desperately wrangling with it to make it say something that, deep down, I don't think it says.
So carry on, all of you who are willing to plow through the history and etymology of it all - I respect your willingness. I'm somewhat in awe of it. And glad I no longer have to do it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 1, 2010 16:34:31 GMT -5
KR, just wanted to chime in and say I think your work is extremely valuable. If people can find their way to a healthier faith, they can find their way to healthier life.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 1, 2010 16:35:09 GMT -5
KR, I'm on the "i can't believe we're still discussing whether X, Y, & Z verses mean women have to be enslaved" side - but that doesn't lower the value of your work at all to the people you're trying to help. Or to yourself, of course. Aside from Journey's personal testimonial about needing that kind of support as she stepped out of abuse, there are a whole bunch of people who still live and breathe Bible study who are not going to listen to the "if it's not healthy I won't sign on" talk at all. There are a a whole lot of patriarchal and complementarian people taking up bandwidth with their interpretation, and the egalitarians are a lifeline in that sea of b.s.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Feb 1, 2010 17:57:53 GMT -5
Ditto. Just because "I" don't currently value Bible verses and interpretations at this point in my life doesn't mean that they are not extremely valuable to you and many others.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 1, 2010 18:10:04 GMT -5
Yes, KR, here is a big huge cheer from the sidelines. I not only think that what you are doing is important----I think it is *vital.* I think that NLQ (and the foundation being started here) has a real treasure in having you onboard.
As for my own personal state right now as regards Bible study and/or caring about Bible study, etc, I am not sure if it is a permanent one or just a place I am at right now as I process and heal from my experiences. It's just where I am for now. I meant no sweeping judgements by it, nor do I wish to imply that all those who do or see things differently from me (ie, those who are no longer Christians at all, OR those who carefully research Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible) are somehow less-than or silly or stupid. Far from it.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 1, 2010 18:54:27 GMT -5
Thanks, everyone. That helps a lot. ;D KR, I'm on the "i can't believe we're still discussing whether X, Y, & Z verses mean women have to be enslaved" side - but that doesn't lower the value of your work at all to the people you're trying to help. Or to yourself, of course. Aside from Journey's personal testimonial about needing that kind of support as she stepped out of abuse, there are a whole bunch of people who still live and breathe Bible study who are not going to listen to the "if it's not healthy I won't sign on" talk at all. There are a a whole lot of patriarchal and complementarian people taking up bandwidth with their interpretation, and the egalitarians are a lifeline in that sea of b.s. Believe me-- I can't believe we Christians still have to be having this discussion either! Sometimes I want to shout at the patriarchalists: "Why won't you listen to yourselves? Do you know what you sound like? Your churches finally accepted a more rational hermeneutic when it comes to slaves; why can't you accept the same kind of hermeneutic when it comes to women? How could God be just, impartial and loving, as we all agree the Scriptures say God is-- and yet be a patriarchalist control-freak who insists on a strict male-to-female chain of command? They can't even hear me. I can only hope there are lurkers who are reading my arguments and weighing them against the fundie arguments, and seeing the sense of what I'm saying. The fact is, that as much as it sickens me that Christians still think it necessary to discuss whether women are fully human, I can't make the conversation go away. But I can contribute to it, on the side of right. I think the patriarchalists worship a tiny, mean-spirited little god made in their own image. But that doesn't mean that's the only kind of God there could be. And that's not the God I see in the Bible. I can only find that mean little god there, if I start reading the Bible in a way that I don't think makes any logical sense.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 1, 2010 21:19:28 GMT -5
I also wanted (if I may) to address this common objection to the historical-context way of reading the Bible: Part of the Protestant viewpoint is that the layperson can and should read the Bible for herself-- but that is not really the same as saying teachers aren't necessary. The New Testament talks a lot about teachers and about the need for good ones. And it also talks about how it is possible to be led astray from simple faith in the love and grace of God. The passage Madame is referring to is in 1 John 2:26: "I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. . . " At this point in his letter, John is talking about teachings that lead people astray. He is saying that when someone is trying to lead us astray from the simple truths of love and grace, there is something deep inside us that will warn us. The context of this passage is not about teachers in general, or about not needing teachers. It's about listening to the "anointing" inside you so that you don't get led astray by false teachers (which I believe the fundamentalist patriarchalists are). Unfortunately, one of the first things spiritually abusive cults do is give you reasons to not listen to that warning inside you! They will take passages out of context to make you believe that your instincts are wicked and should not be trusted, and that instead you should trust their authority and their teachings. I believe that this is the soul and center of spiritual abuse. However, the idea that the Bible is supposed to be so timeless that anyone in any age or culture can read what seems to them like the plain sense of it, without misunderstanding and without needing any teaching or explanation, goes against even what the Bible says about itself. Just about every book in the Bible emphasizes right at the beginning, that it is a message by a certain person, to a certain group of people, at a certain time in history. Those "street signs" are there for a reason-- to tell us that the message was never meant to be understood a-historically or a-culturally. And even Peter, writing at the same time as Paul, said in 2 Peter 3:16, "[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort." Even within the same time and culture, it was possible to read in ignorance and thus to misunderstand. The Protestant position that anyone can and should read the Bible for him/herself, was a response to the Roman Catholic doctrine that laypeople were not to be allowed any other understanding of the Bible than the Church authorities gave them. This was spiritually abusive on the part of the Catholic authorities, and Luther and his ilk rightly protested. And of course there are passages in the Bible that are very simple and timeless, and anyone can receive comfort and encouragement from them. But the idea that everything in the Bible should be perfectly understandable even when read in ignorance-- I think that is putting a false expectation on the book.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 3, 2010 9:34:42 GMT -5
KR Wordgazer, Thanks for looking up the passage and adding some insight to it. I'm usually in a hurry (my 2 year old is climbing all over me right now!) Yes, you're right that history and context are important in understanding the Bible. But how are theologically uneducated people to understand the Bible? Don't you think it's possible that a person who knows nothing about Bible culture could read the Bible and understand what it means to be a Christian? I do believe the Spirit (the anointing) helps us understand what it's all about.
I think the basics of Christianity (following Jesus) are clear. It doesn't take a lot of cultural understanding to "get" Jesus' basic teaching about himself, God, salvation and his kingdom. If one understands the basics, I don't see how they would want to turn around and dominate someone else, in the name of Jesus!
On the other hand, I appreciate Bible study and debate, something which I was not invited to participate in while growing up ( in a patriarchal house-church) or in the churches my husband and I have been members of. I've aways felt that the leaders wanted us to embrace whatever it was they believed, and it was all a bit too supernatural and magical for my logical self. I've only found such discussion online. I have trouble with people who say "it's all so simple", dismissing genuine questions and difficulties with what the Bible says.
I'm not bashing the cultural and historical approach in understanding Paul's and Peter's teaching about gender, but I still think it's important to let the Bible interpret the Bible too, which may be something Egalitarians should consider when they are talking with more fundamentalist Christians (who would generally dismiss any argument which is not backed up by a lot of Scripture!)
My fundamentalist background is still very much there...
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 3, 2010 20:26:23 GMT -5
Madame, I think I have been letting the Bible interpret the Bible when I point to how almost all its books have "street signs" specifically saying that it was a message from, say Paul in the first century to the church at Corinth, or a vision seen by Amos in the land of Israel during the reign of a specific king.
I do think that matters related to eternity, such as salvation, are not related to times and cultures, and because they are not about human relationships, but about relationship with God, they are not wed to cultural-historical assumptions in the same way the teachings about human relationships are. In that sense, sure-- the basics of the faith are timeless. But if we again let the Bible interpret itself-- Romans 10:14-15 certainly implies that the message is easier to receive if it is "preached" rather than received just by reading the Scriptures.
And the Ethopian eunuch told Philip that he needed someone to explain to him what he was reading-- and it was only after he understood it, that he was baptized.
There needs to be a balance between reading for ourselves, and hearing teaching. Neither one can be dispensed with.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 6, 2010 16:31:30 GMT -5
I'm not bashing the cultural and historical approach in understanding Paul's and Peter's teaching about gender, but I still think it's important to let the Bible interpret the Bible too, which may be something Egalitarians should consider when they are talking with more fundamentalist Christians (who would generally dismiss any argument which is not backed up by a lot of Scripture!) My fundamentalist background is still very much there... Ditto madame... I was extremely suspicious of the historical/cultural approach when I was coming out of the fog, judging it "liberal", and a way of discounting and undermining the authority of God's Word. At times, the camp which focuses on knowing all about ancient history strikes me as elitist in the same way the patriarchal camp strikes me as elitist. In one case, scholars are "superior" and condescend to correct we "ignorant, simple people" who would read God's Word as relevant for ME for TODAY and in the other case, males are "superior" and condescend to correct we "ignorant easily deceived women" You are always gentle and gracious, KR. I'm just agreeing with Madame that a Certain segment will not be reached by the historical cultural approach.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Feb 6, 2010 20:18:05 GMT -5
For a really good time with the "historical/cultural" approach, you could look up Anatoly Fomenko's work, on how all "official" history before 1500AD is actually an elaborate lie and hoax and the Roman Empire never really existed as advertised but was copied from the Byzantine Empire, and yada yada yada. But that's just so far down the rabbit hole that I doubt it'll make an impression on y'all other than that people will believe the strangest things that "experts" tell them...
|
|
|
Post by mommybunny1 on Feb 20, 2010 12:04:05 GMT -5
Wow! This certainly is a spirited debate! It is really interesting to see how folks view things depending on their vantage point. In the interest of full disclosure, my background is that of a mainstream Jewish woman. I am currently questioning everything supernatural.
From this viewpoint, I see intelligent, thoughtful women who are actually not in true disagreement. The poster who said that the larger issue is the subjugation of women has hit the bottom line. And she is correct. That said, not everyone here is ready to address this larger issue. I think that there is a place for those who wish to amend, reinterpret and find openings in existing laws and/or beliefs. And there is a place for those who cry "Abolish the law!".
The fact is that men have been able to exploit some basic biology...women bear the children....to maintain dominance. This has occurred regardless of doctrine. It seems that most of us agree that the time and the place that these rules are written has a large influence on the wording and the voracity of what is said. I think the interpretation of the writings of Paul, that he was giving permission and encouragement for men to respect their wives as human beings is likely correct. (And misinterpreted to this day to encourage Patriarchy) Change often occurs in increments. Paul was trying to gently change the dynamic of the time.
Patriarchy then, is a perversion of faith. It is a tactic for males to undermine the powers that women have achieved over the generations. Women were at least free to raise and train the children in their early years in ancient times. Patriarchy seeks to remove even that. Patriarchy is driven, I think by fear. A bully is also a coward. There is a subset of males who fear the loss of control that comes with equality. Religious doctrine is just one tool.
We should be comfortable to come to our own conclusions about the existence/nature of God. It does not need to be threatening to anyone anywhere on the continuum of belief. Our commonality is that we need to, as a community of humans, reject and oppose the attempt of any group of humans who suppress and subjugate any other group of humans...whether it be based on gender, religion, or physical characteristics.
Whether we are atheist, agnostic, monotheist, polytheist, we need to keep our heads above water to see injustice and work to correct it.
The women are here are thoughtful and intelligent. We need to step back and remember this when we get a little bit testy.
|
|