That he chose the former, in the full awareness of the "outrage" and indignation it would inevitably provoke is something for which I can only respect him. The reality is that the Bible talks about women in a way that appears not to align very nicely with the values which we as a culture hold dear - equality, freedom of the individual, feminism - all values which, by the way, I wholeheartedly stand by.
When I read in the Bible that "the head of the woman is man" Ephesians, Chapter 5 , I find it confronting. However, I'm not simply going to avoid, nor dismiss as outdated, those parts of the Bible which are uncomfortable or which clash with my understanding of how the world ought to be. It is confronting because I have been conditioned by my society to regard it as backwards and discriminatory.
We mustn't forget the fact that the entirety of the Christian faith rests on the premise that people are broken and our understanding limited, and that in amongst our blindness and confusion, God's Word alone speaks truth. Surely, then, it ought to come as no surprise when there exists a rift between my own, culturally-inscribed values, and the doctrines of the Bible.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to suggest that if the Bible says sexism is OK, then I simply have to accept that my hatred of sexism is merely the product of the short-sightedness of society. Not at all. I recoil at the suggestion that the faith I've professed to be mine for my entire life is one that endorses and even institutes the male-centric, patriarchal social structures which have predominated history and which I so detest.
Thankfully, however, I do not believe this to be the case. I would actually argue the idea that the Bible is sexist, that Christianity and feminism are mutually exclusive, is a misconception.
The Archbishop managed - quite compellingly, in my opinion - to reconcile the seemingly sexist discourse of the Bible with our understanding of God as loving his children equally, who created both men and women in His image, and who would never regard a person as being of greater worth - or choose to bestow greater status on them - simply by virtue of their being a male.
The point made by the Archbishop was that there is a crucial yet frequently overlooked distinction between order and hierarchy. He maintained that males and females are inherently unique in relation to each other, and that, consequently, relationships between men and women in the church and marriage are asymmetrical and our roles take on different forms.
And yes, the Bible does tell us that men are created to exercise a particular leadership in these contexts, and that wives ought to order themselves to the leadership of their husbands - but it also emphasises husbands' responsibility to love their wives sacrificially. I get that in all likelihood, this will do little to redeem the Bible's position for most people; but it is a mistake to equate the Bible's description of male headship with an assertion of male superiority.
I am not offended by the notion that my role as a female has a distinct character that it is qualitatively as opposed to quantitatively different to that of a male. I believe that this asymmetrical relationship between men and women holds the potential for a beautiful kind of harmony.
And it would have been a siren calling for Rome to intervene. The Empire did nothing with subtlety. And so, again, instead of suggesting women are less-than-capable as compared to their male counterparts, perhaps Paul is asking these early followers of Jesus, both male and female, to do exactly what their Messiah did—use their freedom for the benefit of others. Humans are complicated people.
This hard advice to the church in Corinth, when viewed through our goggles, seems terribly misogynistic. But in the eyes of the original culture, the writings of Paul would have a very visible throughline of advancing the rights of women, not restricting them. So What? For Paul, the end goal was not power dynamics within marriage, or even between genders, but how the message of Christ was being perceived and therefore received by those who were still on the outside.
Paul, like Jesus, taught that women were not less than men and saw them as equals in the work of spreading the Gospel.
The fact that Paul even writes directly to women is astounding given his cultural context, and further supports the fact that he saw women as of unparalleled consequence to the future of Christianity. When I started my long trek through the Bible, I thought I was doing it for my daughter.
If any organization on earth should lead the way in gender equality, it should be the church. But just like in ancient Rome, the church should be a reflection of the unity and equality that is occurring in our homes.
There are no second-class children in my family. And God is a much better Father than I am, so I must assume the same is true for the rag-tag family God is creating. Process, journal or discuss the themes of this article - here's a few questions to get the ball rolling Whether you knew these Bible verses already or are hearing them for the first time, how might this change the way you view God?
Whatever jumped out to you most, take a minute to write it down. Choose a time this week to dig into it more. Share it with a friend. Talk to God about it. Or do your own research like Caleb did. This stuff helps us figure out how many fruitcakes to make come December. You must include at least one person. Got it! Enjoy your discussion. Dad of three, husband of one, pastor at Crossroads, and at the moment would rather be reading Tolkien, watching British TV, or in a pub with a pint of Guinness.
Series: Rock Solid. Subscribe to get our best content delivered straight to your inbox. This website stores data such as cookies to enable essential site functionality, as well as marketing, personalization, and analytics. Data Storage Policy.
Accept Deny. Is it Harry Potter-esque fiction? Is it Aristotelian morality? Is it history? Well, it's all of those things and more.
Its construction is bizarre: epic in narrative, trivial in parts, and trippy in conclusion. How many books tell the same story four times?
Toby says we should read it as a whole, in context, and possibly in a group. But who does? In any case, it seems plain to me that if only theologians and biblical scholars can get full understanding and benefit out of the Bible, then we're in real trouble. As Mark Twain said, "It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
I have read the whole Bible, and dip in and out of it often, following Don Corleone's maxim about keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. At school we read it and giggled at the rude bits.
As a teenager with mildly dark thoughts, I read it in one go, back to front, as the Omen had piqued my interest in Revelation. Most of all, God loved them, and God used them mightily in the story of redemption. Hannah figures prominently in that story. Read 1 Samuel That will really melt your heart as you think about how God loves women and cares for them in their plight.
Abigail, Esther; the very fact that the church is the bride of Christ. The fact that Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman John She's not only a Samaritan, but she's a woman.
A rabbi never talked to a woman. Women were never disciples of rabbis ever, and yet Jesus brings women into the circle of his disciples and makes them, in fact, the first witnesses of his resurrection. A lot of people don't know this, but in the Old Testament, there's a whole motif of a man of marriageable age meeting a woman of marriageable age at a well.
That's where you would go to find your wife. In the context there in John's Gospel, prior to that meeting with the Samaritan woman, John the Baptist had just been talking in John 4 about the Christ coming, and he has a bride; then you have Jesus meeting this woman at a well.
0コメント