Shawna Atteberry

The Baker Who Also Writes and Teaches

Viewpoint of a female minister

I just posted this letter on Salon.com:

I am Rev. Shawna Atteberry, and I am an ordained minister in the Church of the Nazarene–an evangelical denomination. The Nazarene church has ordained women since its beginning in 1903. We are part of the American Holiness Movement that ordained their first woman pastor in 1859. Another evangelical denomination, The Salvation Army, has ordained women since its beginning in the 1860s. In fact, Catherine Booth would not marry William until he “saw the light” that women could preach. Their daughter, Evangeline, was the third general of the Army (i. e. leader of the entire denomination). Coming from a tradition that has ordained women for 150 years, I find Mark Driscoll’s view of women medieval to say the least.

Driscoll’s view is not biblical either. The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 2:18 that is mistranslated at “helper” actually means “a power equal to.” Woman was created to be a help or power equal to man–to be his eqaul in life, work, ministry, and marriage. There are several women leaders in the Bible: Deborah was a judge, prophet, and military leader (Judges 4–5); Miriam, the sister of Moses was a prophet (Exodus 15:20); and in the New Testament Priscilla and Aquila were co-pastors as well as made tents for a living together, and Junia was an apostle (Romans 16:7). In Romans 16:1 we find Paul sent the letter with Phoebe who was the pastor of the church in Cenchreae. Normally “pastor” is mistranslated as “helper,” but this is the same word that Paul uses to describe Timothy and Titus in their pastoral ministries.

Driscoll’s view of the roles of men and women are not biblical, and I believe harmful for both sexes. Biblically, both men and women are called to minister, work, and take care of their families together. Their highest priority is to obey God, and show Christlike love to each other and the world, not confine themselves into impossible gender roles.

Sincerely,
Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry

Update: My letter has been posted on Salon.com.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

The Spiritual June Cleaver

Salon has an article on Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church (Hat tip to the The Reclusive Leftist). I was so sad after reading this article. In short they’ve taken the post-WW2 culture, and they are trying to make it biblical.

Following Driscoll’s biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible. And these are no mere women who fear independence, who are looking to live by the simple tenets of fundamentalist credo, enforced by a commanding husband: many of the women of Mars Hill reluctantly abandon successful lives lived on their own terms to serve their husbands and their Lord.

So if Deborah went to Mars Hill, she would have had to resign from being a prophet and judge, and who would have led Israelite troops to victory over Sisera? I guess Isreal would not have had that 40 years of peace under her rule. I guess Phoebe would not have been a deacon in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). The word that describes Phoebe as a “deacon” is the same word Paul uses when speaking of Timothy and Titus in their pastoral duties. At Mars Hill Phoebe would not have been allowed to pastor the church at Cenchreae, and she sure wouldn’t have been allowed to take Paul’s letter to Rome. Priscilla would not have been a tentmaker and copastor with her husband. Junia would not have been an apostle (Romans 16:7).

The online screening process that is used in Driscoll’s Acts 29 church planting application “begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine.”

I have dealt with biblical literalism in Truth vs. Fact. In Does It Really Mean Helpmate? I looked at the creation account and showed that the Hebrew phrase ezer cenedgo means a help or power equal to, and that there is nothing submissive about the term. Woman was created equal with man to be partners with him in life, marriage, and ministry.

In other conversations I have pointed out that I am from rural Oklahoma. On the farm or ranch everyone worked. There was no man’s work and woman’s work–husband, wife, children, and who ever else lived there worked to bring in the crop and cows. If they didn’t they starved. The division of the family between separate jobs and home is a fairly new phenomenon within human history. I also come from a poor, working class family–my mom worked; she had to. I have always looked at the stay-at-home mother as a middle class luxury. In many places around the world both men and women work hard to keep their families from starving. Not everyone has the luxury of one person staying home. In fact, few people do. That’s why I call this the post-WW2 mentality–society has to be at a certain economic level within an industrialized or technological society to afford the luxury of the stay at home mom.

The bottom line is it’s not biblical. As my Career Woman of the Bible series shows God called women to be prophets, judges, and other leaders to obey him and lead his people. Women have the right to work: in Genesis 1:26 care and dominion of creation is given to both man and woman before the command to procreate in verse 28. Women are called to work in the world, work in ministry, and be ordained as pastors and ministers, because God has called us as the full witness of the Bible affirms.

Things like this used to make mad. Now I grieve. I grieve over the bondage that this lie puts on both men and women, and it is not God’s will.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Career Women of the Bible: Standing Between God and the People

In the last installment of Career Women of the Bible, I looked at Deborah and how she had functioned as a prophet and judge. Now I will look at her counterpart in the story, and the woman who would destroy Israel’s enemy: Jael. Again I will look at Judges 5 first since it is the older tradition and text.

Jael is first mentioned in Deborah’s song in verse 24: “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed.” The only other woman in the Bible who is called “most blessed of woman” is Mary when she goes to visit Elizabeth after finding out she will be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:42). But Jael is being blessed for killing a man, and according to chapter four this man was the general of the king her husband had made an agreement with. She is being praised for killing an ally. Why would she kill Sisera in the first place?

In chapter five it is debatable if Jael is married. Ishshat heber is normally translated “wife of Heber.” But Abraham Malamat has given an alternate translation of 5:24. “Most blessed of women be Jael, A woman of the Kenite community, Of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Qtd. in Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer Seductress, Queen, 99). He explains that from other texts written during the time of the Bronze Age that a cognate of heber can mean “a community unit, a clan, a band, or a tribe.” There are places in the Old Testament where heber does mean to be part of a group. In Hosea 6:9 it is used to describe a company of priests, and in 2 Samuel 2:3 the phrase “cities of Hebron” could mean that “Hebron” itself originally meant a group of towns or communities that settled close to each other. Jael could have simply been part of the Kenite community and not necessarily married.

Judges has already established that the Kenites were descended from Moses’ father-in-law (1:16). Although there is variance in what his name was, all the traditions agree on one thing concerning Moses’ father-in-law: he was a priest. Judges 4:11 is the first time we have seen “Kenite” since chapter one, and the writer once again points out that the Kenites are descended from Moses’ father-in-law, it can be assumed that the writer wants us to connect Heber and Jael with their priestly ancestor. If this is the case by connecting Jael to the Kenite community the writer is giving her actions priestly authority. By inserting one word he is telling his readers that Jael is functioning in a cultic role parallel to Deborah’s prophetic role.

The later redactor of chapter four elaborates on the priestly theme. Now Jael is the wife of Heber, and there is peace between her husband and King Jabin of Hazor. This peace is probably the result of a work arrangement: Heber being a smith is needed to keep Jabin’s chariots in good working order.

We also find out in 4:11 that Heber has moved away from the Kenites and he and Jael have encamped at Elon-bezaanannim, near Kadesh. Probably to be closer to where good business would be. Continuing to follow Ackerman’s argument that Jael is functioning in a priestly role, she says another clue given is the name Elon-bezaanannim, which means “the oak of Zaanannim.” This is a clue the place where they encamped is sacred space, because oaks were often used to symbolize the holy. Oaks are used in other places in Scripture to denote a theophany, and they are also places where divine revelations and teaching occur (see Gen. 12:6; 13:18; 14;13; 35:8; and Jud. 9:6). Ackerman also notes the root that oak is derived from in the Hebrew is the same root that “God” or “gods” comes from, el. For Jael’s tent to be pitched by or under an oak tree is to signify that it is a sacred spot, holy ground.

This is further confirmed in the next place name given to show where Heber and Jael live; they live near Kadesh. In Joshua Kadesh had been designated as one of the cities of refuge where someone who unintentionally committed murder could flee to escape the revenge of the kinsman redeemer. It is also a city whose lands were given to the Levites, so they could graze their animals, so Kadesh was also identified with both a sanctuary and Israel’s cult. It is also the only city in Naphtali that has this dual claim.

The redactor of Judges 4 has given us three major markers that Jael is to be seen in a cultic role: she is a Kenite, descended from Moses’ father-in-law; her tent is under or near a sacred oak, and she lives near Kadesh. The poem of Judges 5 uses the single word “Kenite” to clue the reader to her cultic status. Whether or not Jael is married, her tent is seen as sacred ground, and this is the reason why Sisera enters it in both stories. In Judges 4 he is given the additional insurance that there is a peace between Heber and Jabin. Sisera believes himself to be safe for both reasons.

Jael appears to be the perfect hostess at first, offering him luxuries to drink and eat. In Judges 5 there is no mention of Sisera lying down to sleep. Jael gives him food and drink, and while he is still on his feet strikes him with the tent peg and mallet. He falls at her feet with imagery of sex and death being intertwined (see Susan Niditch, “Eroticism and Death in the Tale of Jael”). In Judges 4 after feeding him Jael covers him with a rug and waits until he falls asleep before silently creeping to him to kill him.

There has been much debate over Jael’s flagrant disregard for her husband’s treaty and for the laws of Near Eastern hospitality (see Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes, 119-123 for an overview). The question is why would she do this? Why would she kill her husband’s ally? Why would she break the laws that governed hospitality? There has been much work done on the danger she was in if Barak did find Sisera in her tent. She would then be seen as Israel’s enemy. The verses that follow Jael’s murder of Sisera have Sisera’s mother saying that he delays because there is a woman (literally “womb”) or two for each man to rape, and she did not want to have the same fate befall her. It is also worth noting that if Sisera’s intentions were honorable, he would have gone into her husband’s tent and not hers. In my “Judges” class in seminary, we learned that the tradition of the time was for the husband and wife or wives to have their own separate tents. There was no reason for Sisera to be in her tent. If her husband came home, she would have been accused of adultery. She was protecting herself from possible rape as well as the possibility of being killed.

Ackerman presents another way to interpret Jael’s actions. In staying with the possibility that she is functioning in a cultic role then she acts because she is doing what Yahweh has told her to do. She knows that this is a holy war Yahweh is waging against the Canaanites to deliver his people from their oppression. This suspends the rules of sanctuary she could provide for Sisera. Jael is acting as Moses, Phineas, and the leaders of Israel acted when the men of Israel had sexual relations with women of Moab and yoked themselves to Baal of Peor by worshipping him (Numbers 25). Phineas’ zeal for upholding the covenant by killing an Israelite man, and Midianite women he brought into camp, is commended by God, and he and his family receive a blessing (verses 10-13). As Moses and Phineas protected Israel’s heritage as the people of Yahweh, so Jael does. She knows the deeds of this man: his arrogance, brutality, and what he would do if she were a woman of a tribe he defeated. She would finish the battle Deborah had started and help to insure 40 years of peace in Israel. With Deborah she would bring shalom to God’s people by obeying what she knew to be the will of God.

In the end I think Jael was a woman caught in a very tough position. She knew of Sisera and his reputation. She also knew of the battle, and that the Israelites would be right behind him. She did what she had to in order to protect herself and her family. Danna Nolan Fewell says this in conclusion of her interpretation of the Jael story:

The relationships depicted in this story may also reflect the evolving relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Yahweh’s authority, like that of Deborah, is questioned (4:1: “The Israelites again did evil in the sight of Yahweh”; 5:8: “new gods were chosen”). When people find themselves in dire straits, they appeal to Yahweh, just as Jael appeals to violence. And like Jael, perhaps Yahweh too does what must be done in order to save the family of Israel and is lauded, like Jael, not for who he is but for what he has done to benefit Israel (Fewell, “Judges,” 76).

As a priest it was Jael’s duty to stand between God and the people–to intercede. In order to save her family and possibly her people, Sisera had to be turned over to the Israelites. He became her sacrifice. Jael reminds us that standing between God and the people can be a very dangerous place. Hard decisions must be made, and in the end, there are times we wonder if what we did is what God wanted.

Sources:

Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), “Most Blessed of Women” 89-127.

Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994).

Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002), “Of the Cult and Priests,” 35-46.

Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges” in Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992, 1998), 75-6.

E. John Hamlin, Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).

Susan Niditch, “Eroticism and Death in the Tale of Jael,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 43-57.

All biblical quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Truth vs. Fact

In comments left on Does It Really Mean Helpmate? Mary and Seeker wanted to know why women kept insisting on interpreting this phrase to mean that they were subordiante and submissive, and why some wouldn’t even entertain the idea that there could be another option. It’s part of a whole fundamentalist mindset. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church, so I know the fundamentalist mindset very well, and I am very glad I no longer have it. They have built a house of cards around the Bible as literal truth (actually they see the Bible as literal “fact”). Part of this literalism is that a passage or text can have only one meaning. Both literalism and a passage having one meaning are totally foreign to Hebrew thought. The Israelites used symbolism, similes, and metaphors to picture truths that could not be contained in language. They never meant for certain passages and genres of Scripture to be taken literally. They also loved paradox. The Hebrew people had no problem juxtaposing two opposites and then leaving it up to the reader to work out the paradox for themselves. They believed that faith was lived out in the nitty-gritty day-to-day living, and therefore, there were no pat answers for every situation. This is really seen in the first five books of the Bible where Leviticus and Numbers basically tries to figure out how to live out the Ten Commandments in the Isrealite’s daily lives. They also had no problem admitting when they didn’t know the details and facts of something God did, and this is seen in the first two chapters of Genesis. There are two different creation accounts in Genesis 1:1–2:4 and Genesis 2:5-25. In these two accounts God creates the heavens and earth in different ways and in a different order. The Isrealites did not know exactly how God created the heavens and earth, and they had two traditions that told the “how” and included them in their Scriptures. Their statement of faith is: Yahweh created everything (not Molech, not Baal, not Marduk). Inspired writers of Scripture did not agree on the how only that God–Yahweh–created everything, and therefore no other god or idol was to be worshiped.

Back to the fundamentalist mindset–they interpret the Bible literally. And they have spent so much time and effort to “prove” that the Bible is “true” (i. e. fact) that they cannot admit to the figurative genres and methods that Biblical writers used. Because they’ve reduced the truth to mere fact and data, that means that each Biblical passage can only mean one thing and that thing only. That is why these women won’t listen to alternative readings: if there is an alternative reading then their house of cards falls down. In their minds if that happens, then somehow the Bible is not God’s word and this somehow means that God isn’t God. This also is why they refuse to see anything but creation in six actual days as the way God created the world. If God created the world in any other way than how Genesis 1 says he created the world, then everything else in the Bible is undermined. They have very convulated arguments that harmonize the two different creation accounts. This is also why Revelation is interpreted literally with no room that the whole thing is one big symbolic writing and had meaning for the people living in the first century–all of it applied to them, period.

I feel sorry for them. Their view of God is so small, and they don’t even realize it. For me God is God, period. Every word in the Bible could be a lie, and God would still be God, period. That’s what “sovereign” means. But when you have raised the Bible to be part of the Trinity, then you have to prove everything it says, or God’s sovereignty is somehow undermined, which is just crazy. The Bible is not God, in fact, it’s not even the word of God. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is our faith confession of how God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit) come to us, and want to have an intimate relationship with us. The Bible is God’s people working out their salvation and trying to make sense of this God who dies for us and wants us after so much rejection and heartache. And the Bible is culturally influenced. God does not force us or coerce us, and he did not force or coerce the writers of the Bible: they wrote from a certain culture and way of life that they understood, which is why patriarchy is in the Bible (polygamy and slavery as well). It’s not in the Bible because God ordained it: it’s in the Bible because that is the broken, sinful culture that God had to work with. When you see inspiration as God working with us in relationship and not zapping us into robots and dictating everything, that gives us a little more leeway. That also means that not eveyrthing in the Bible as to be fact or data. The Bible says the sun revolves around the earth because that’s how ancient people saw it–not how God created it. But that wasn’t an integral part of God’s plan to reconcile creation to himself, so he didn’t “correct” the writers. Anything that does not pertain to salvation may not be “fact.” There does not have to be a big war between science and faith. When you view the Bible as a theological statement of faith in Yahweh, and not a document of facts and datum, then it’s okay if there’s scientific inaccuracies due to the culture at the time. Everything we need to know about God and how to have a relationship with God is there. Everything we need to know to enter the Kingdom of God and build the Kingdom of God in the here and now is there. And that’s the important stuff: not the periphals of creation in six days or what revolves around what in space.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

The 12th Century, B. C. E., Career Woman

In my imagination I see her under her palm tree, sitting and listening to the people who came to her for justice and peace. Her head nodding as she listens. In my mind’s eye I see her standing, veil blowing in the wind, eyes flashing, as she commands Barak to gather his men and fight Sisera at Yahweh’s command. I also see her resolutely lead Israel’s armies into battle, her chin set, her eyes never wavering from their forward stare. After the battle I see her dancing around the fire, tambourine in hand, singing of the victory in what would become one of the oldest songs recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. But I also see her in her home, feeding her family, singing stories to her children, going to bed with her husband. Deborah: the first career woman mentioned in the Bible. She is judge, prophet, military leader, and worship leader. But she is also wife, mother, sister, and daughter. It’s no wonder that those who advocate that the “bibilical” place for women is in the home and not the workforce, skip right over Deborah and her story.

During the time of the Judges, Deborah arose as a judge and prophet to lead the people of Israel against an enemy that had cruelly oppressed them for 20 years: King Jabin of Canaan and his general Sisera. Judges 5 is one of the oldest texts of the Bible believed to have been composed as early as the late twelfth century B.C.E. It predates Judges 4 by several centuries. It is Deborah’s song of victory over the forces of Jabin and Sisera, which climaxed in Sisera’s death.

In “Awake! Awake! Utter a Song!” Susan Ackerman shows how Hebrew parallelism is used to show that Deborah and Yahweh work together to win this victory. Verses 1-2 set the tone, ”the people are waiting for Yahweh, they are ready to obey what he says. Deborah calls to the kings and princes to listen to her song for Yahweh has spoken to her. In verses 3-4 Deborah sings of Yahweh’s coming. Yahweh comes from Seir and Edom; from the place where God met Israel at Sinai and made a covenant with them. God is shown as marching north to fight for and defend the people. It is a cosmic event: the earth trembles, the heavens and clouds pour water, the mountains quake when Yahweh comes.

Verses 6-7 then show us what is happening on earth: people cannot travel safely and caravans stopped until Deborah arose as “a mother in Israel,” then the people, even peasants, prospered on the plunder that was taken. This poetic feature shows that this is a holy war: God is coming to fight for his people, and it doesn’t take place on the cosmic level alone–it takes place on the earth to deliver his people. The song also shows that Deborah is Yahweh’s counterpart on earth; she is the one God is speaking through and working through to accomplish God’s purposes on earth.

In verse 7 Deborah is referred to as “a mother in Israel.” Judges 5 does not mention Deborah being married, so it is unlikely we are to take this phrase to literally mean that Deborah had children. The only other place “mother in Israel” is used is 2 Samuel 20:19 to describe the city of Abel of Beth-maacah where Sheba hides after he has instigated a rebellion against King David. When Joab besieges the city a wise woman appears at the wall wanting to know why he is attacking a city that is “a mother in Israel.” Abel is a city that is known for its wisdom in settling matters between conflicting parties. In the past it had been said, “Let them inquire at Abel” (2 Sam. 20:18). Abel was renown for its ability to resolve conflicts. It is a peaceful city, faithful in Israel, which could be a reference to its support of David. The wise woman also calls Abel “the heritage of the Lord” (v. 22). Earlier in 1 Samuel when the mother of Tekoa pleads her case to David she calls her son “the heritage of the Lord” (14:16). The heritage of Yahweh is something that Yahweh has given to his people whether it be children or land, and it is viewed as worth fighting for. “A mother in Israel” is a city that is renown for its wisdom and negotiating skills. It is able to bring about resolutions that protect the heritage of Yahweh.

By extension the wise woman herself is “a mother in Israel.” She shows all of the characteristics of her city: wisdom, negotiating skills, and she is a leader. She wants to protect her city, which is the heritage of Yahweh, and she will have a man killed in order to secure the well-being of her city. This is seen in the fact that Joab speaks to her and doesn’t demand to see someone else. This woman is the elder, and in all likelihood, the military commander of Abel, and that is why Joab negotiates with her: she is his equal.

For Judges 5 to call Deborah “a mother in Israel” is to show that she was known for her wisdom and ability to negotiate peace. It also shows her passionate commitment to bring peace to Israel and well-being to the heritage of Yahweh. She will insure that her people have peace and can prosper, and so she is willing to go to war with Jabin and Sisera at the command of Yahweh to accomplish this goal. She is “the perfect human counterpart of Yahweh, who as ‘the God of Israel’ likewise displays a passionate commitment to the Israelite community” (Ackerman, 43). In the past Yahweh has fought for his people and delivered them out of slavery and oppression, and Deborah boldly announces that he is about to act to free Israel again, and Deborah will obey all he commands of her to see his will done.

The next place we see the cosmic/earth and divine/human intersection is in verse 12: “Awake, awake, Deborah! Awake, awake, utter a song!” Normally the cry to “awake” is cried out by the people to God. They are calling for him to awake and come to their aid. This pattern is seen in both the Psalms and the Prophets. Here we see that it is Deborah who is called to “awake.” This call can come to Deborah because she is Yahweh’s human representative on earth.

In Judges 5 Deborah’s marital status is never mentioned. She is also clearly the military leader with Barak as her second-in-command. This is seen in the following ways: first her name is mentioned more often. Second Barak’s name never appears independent of Deborah’s, and her name is always first. The text also says that the oppression happening in Israel did not stop until Deborah arose in Israel; Barak is not mentioned. The verb arose also implies that it was Deborah who arose to lead Israel’s troops against Sisera and his army.

This changes in Judges 4. Chapter 4 is part of the Deuteronomistic history, which was written and complied during Josiah’s reign in the seventh century B.C.E. Deborah is now identified as a prophet and judge. She is the only female judge in the Hebrew Scriptures, and one of the few named female prophets (Miriam, Huldah, and Noadiah are the other three). She is also married: she is the wife of Lappidoth.

Her role as military leader has been considerably minimized. Yahweh’s role in the battle and the defeat is also curtailed. In chapter 5 Yahweh marched north to Israel causing cosmic upheavel in order to free his people. The only mention of Yahweh’s participation in chapter 4 is in verse 15 where Yahweh throws Sisera’s troops into a panic so that Barak and his men can come and win. Barak now leads the troops although he would not go into battle unless Deborah accompanied him. His reticence to believe that Yahweh was speaking through Deborah would cost him the glory of killing Sisera himself: that honor would go to a woman.

During the premonarchic period before the monarchy and the cult were institutionalized in Jerusalem, a woman could be portrayed as a military leader leading troops into battle to execute Yahweh’s holy war on earth. Due to the mythic nature of the poem, Israel could look beyond gendered roles for women to accept a female military leader. This has changed in the seventh century. Both the monarchy and the temple cult are set in place and acceptable gender roles are established. A female military leader is unacceptable. Therefore Deborah fades into the background and Barak takes the lead. Barak also takes the glory in the rest of the canon (1 Samuel 12:11; Hebrews 11:32). In the lists of judges who are commended, Barak is always mentioned; Deborah is forgotten.

There have also been efforts to insure that Deborah is portrayed as a ‘good, little wife.” This is seen in the tag that she is the wife of Lappidoth. This is also seen in commentators who have tried to marry her off to Barak to explain why they go into battle together. The text does not support a marriage between the two. And Lappidoth does not seem to play a part in Deborah’s calling as a leader. According to the text he didn’t even have anything to say about his wife going off to war. He could have been one of the warriors who went into battle, but apparently he supported his wife’s ministry, and had no trouble with Deborah being a judge over Israel and a prophet.

Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, mother not only to her own children, but to Isreal; prophet, judge, and leader, shows us that women juggling their callings as wife, mother, and leader have existed from the beginning. She is also shows us that family and career can be juggled successfully.

Sources

Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), “Awake! Awake! Utter a Song!” 27-88.

Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002), “Judge and Prophets,” 23-34.

E. John Hamlin, Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).

The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), “Judges,” 133-5.

All biblical quotations are taken from the Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Older Women or Female Elders?

Over at The Happy Feminist, there has been a very good discussion over the roles of women in marriage spurred on by the Forbes’ article this week where Michael Noer basically tells men to run from career women because a marriage with one of us will never last (Happy has a great synopsis and several links on her site, so go over there for more info on the article that started all this). I had left a comment on what the words normally mistranslated as “helpmate” in Gen. 2 really mean (don’t worry–I’ll be writing an article on that too). I had a request to post an article on Titus 2:3-5. So here is the first part of a series of articles on women, marriage, careers, and the Bible. If you have any Scriptures you would like me to talk about, please leave a comment. As I told Mary, I am always looking for subjects to post on.

Titus was the pastor of Crete. Toward the end of his life, Paul wrote Titus a letter. Crete was a challenging place to be a pastor. It claimed to be the birthplace of the Greek gods Zeus and Hera, and they capitalized on this with celebrations and giving tours of Zeus’ tomb. Every religion in the Roman Empire was there as well including the mystery religions that claimed to give secret knowledge to those who went through their initiations and became members. In Crete young, married women tended to be left on their own after marriage. A woman would leave her father’s home and move into her husband and his family’s home. There she was never quite trusted because she was brought into the family, and could still have more loyalty to her birth family. These women were separated from the women they grew up with, and thrown into houses with women who never trusted them, let alone helped them learn how to be wives and mothers. Alcoholism was rampant among young women in Crete who could not handle the pressures and stress of married life. These women were also easy victims for religious charlatans. Secret sects along with the priests of Cybele would insinuate themselves into the domestic sphere through these women, and several made a good living ripping these women off. Crete was known for its lack of morals in all areas of life. In fact, to be called a Cretan meant that one was a thieving drunkard. Crete was the only place in the Roman Empire were dishonest gain was fine and in some cases encouraged. It was one of the most immoral places in the Roman Empire. And the Cretans took pride in that.

In Titus 2:3 Paul instructs Titus, the pastor of Crete: “Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good.” The Greek word that is normally translated “older women” is presbutidas, which is the feminine form of the word normally translated as “elder” when it is describing a man. It is very likely that these women are not “older women” but female elders. They would have been older since the Jews would not consider someone to be an elder until the age of 60. Older people were looked to for their wisdom in the pagan world as well. Post-meonpausal women had much more freedom in the ancient world as well. In Judaism women were considered unclean during their periods, which disqualified them from religious service during that time of the month. After menopause a women had more freedom in the religious and public spheres–she was no longer unclean, and she was considered wise because of the many years she had lived. We see this in Anna at the temple in Luke 2: she lived at the temple and prayed everyday. She was probably also a teacher there as well. These elders are instructed “to teach what is good.” Teach is from didaskolos which is the word Paul uses to describe teaching the Gospel. Although the instruction goes on to tell them to train the younger women to love their husbands and children, there is no reason to believe that the younger women are the only ones in Titus’ congregation they taught. But the young women who were now part of the church had no teaching in morality or how to be wives and mothers. So Paul encouraged the female elders to focus their teaching on helping these younger women learn how to cope with all the responsibilities of being a wife and mother in Crete. This teaching probably included how to fend off the charalatans that preyed on them and their families. Paul wanted these young women to know the truth of the Gospel, so they would know when they were being hoodwinked for money, and could protect their families from these greedy hucksters.

We also find female elders in another of Paul’s letters. In 1 Timothy 5:1-2 presbutiro is used for both men and women, and is translated as “older men” and “older women.” In this section Paul is dealing with the established order of ministry within the church as seen in the instructions for enrolling widows. These two groups could be the elders of the church. In verse 17 the plural form, presbutiboi, is used of those who preach and teach in the church, and Paul tells Timothy that they are worthy of double honor. There is no reason to believe that this group was comprised of only men, especially since Paul used both the masculine and feminine form of the adjective in the first two verses of chapter 5. It appears women functioned as elders in the church who taught and preached to the younger generation.

Sources:

The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), “Titus,” 754-8.

Shawna Renee Bound, Your Daughters Shall Prophesy: A Biblical Theology of Single Women in Ministry, unpublished thesis, (© by Shawna Renee Bound 2002), “Women in the Early Church,” 69-70.

Aida Besancon Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 106-8.

All biblical translations are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

What is beauty?

On ChristianityToday.com, Agnieszka Tennant reviews John and Stasi Eldredge’s Captivating in What (Not All) Women Want. The book deals with a woman’s desires, and how she can attain them biblically instead of according to culture. On the front cover is a picture of a woman in white dress walking toward the castle. Tennant says that she is worried that the Edredges’ view is a “finicky feminity.” There is the usual women should not be “domineering” schtick. These are women who love their careers and earn promotions. They will even travel alone. What they say women want bugs me almost as much as their definition of beauty. What women want: romance, to be swept away in an adventure, and to be the beauty in the story. And beauty? “We wear perfume, paint our toenails, color our hair, and pierce our ears, all in an effort to be ever more beautiful.” Can this possibly be more superficial?

We live in a society that idolatrizes its version of beauty to the extent that girls and women suffer from various eating disorders in order to try to be “beautiful.” I do not believe this is the advice Christian authors should be giving to their readers. I agree with Tennant that this is a finicky feminity. I also think it is a dangerous one. The church should be giving a different view of beauty, and what makes a woman beautiful. Although they encourage women not to listen to the culture, it sound like in the end the Eldredges buy into culture’s definition of “beauty.”

I like how Tennant went on to broaden the definition of beauty into the aesthetical realm–literature, poetry, and paintings. Her expansion reminds us that beauty is all around us, and is not the sole domain of how women look. Beauty can quicken our hearts and make us catch our breath. It can make us see the world as it should be, and help us to work harder to make the world the way it should be. It reminds us that all that God created is good. May be the Eldredges should have been encouraging their readers to pursue their gifts in writing, painting, sculpting, and the other arts in order to show their own inner beauty with a culture desperately in need of true beauty.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

The marginalization of the Spirit

Spirit-Sophia is the source of transforming energy among all creatures. She initiates novelty, instigates change, transforms what is dead into new stretches of life. Fertility is intimately related to her recreative power, as is the attractiveness of sex. It is she who is ultimately playful, fascinating, pure and wise, luring human beings into the depths of love. As mover and encourager of what tends toward stasis, Spirit-Sophia inspires human creativity and joy in the struggle. Wherever the gift of healing and liberation in however partial a manner reaches the winterized or damaged earth, or people crushed by war and injustice, or individual persons weary, harmed, sick, or lost on life’s journey, there the new creation in the Spirit is happening (Elizabeth A. Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, 135).

In Johnson’s book she points out that the Holy Spirit is normally glossed over in regular theological tomes. She finds this interesting since it is God the Spirit who works in this world to reconcile creation to God and to build God’s kingdom. She also finds this lack of scholarship interesting since most of the feminine names for divinity revolve around the Spirit. Johnson begins her theological reflection about God with God the Spirit.

I wonder if this lack of reflection on and talking about the Spirit is one of the reasons why the Church appears to be ineffective in combatting the powers and principalities of the world: racism, sexism, genocide, war, economic injustice, and the battles going on between different Christian organizations. Johnson goes on to say that it is Sophia-Spirit who gives us hope when there is no reason hope. She is the one who inspires us to new creative and prophetic endeavors to stand against the evil in our world and bring into life the loving and redeeming kingdom of God. I have always been a visionary–a prophetic visionary. I see the way things are, but I also see the way things should be. But very often I forget about Sophia-Spirit’s presence and power in our world. I forget that it is She who has given me the insight and calling that I have. I need to remember this God who tirelessly and mercifully continues to work and move and love this world back to herself.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

Someone didn't do all her research

Hugo Schwyzer made me aware of Charlotte Allen’s “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sin” in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. She makes this claim: “It doesn’t help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches.” Mainline churches are far from being “pioneers” in ordaining women. She goes on to imply that ordaining women is one of the sins of liberal Christianity. She also makes a wide sweep of suggesting that only denominations who ordain women are also the ones who ordain homosexuals and are pushing for same-sex unions. I wrote this letter to the editor:

As an ordained female minister with the Church of the Nazarene, I wonder if Charlotte Allen did any research on women and ordination before she wrote “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins.” The Church of the Nazarene has ordained women since its beginning in 1903. In fact, the American Holiness movement that we come from ordained its first woman 1856. The Salvation Army has ordained women since its beginning in 1865. In fact, Catherine Booth would not marry William until “he saw the light” that women could be preachers and pastors. She wrote Women’s Ministry or Women’s Right to Preach the Gospel. William and Catherine’s daughter, Evangeline, who was an ordained minister, went on to be General of the Army as well. All of these denominations today are conservative theologically. They do not believe in same-sex unions or homosexual ordination, and they are growing worldwide. Ms. Allen made some good points in her article, but she cannot claim that women’s ordination is a factor in men leaving the church, nor lower church attendance. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary on that. She can neither claim that because a denomination believes in women’s ordination that those same denominations also believe in gay marriage and ordination. The Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, The Free Methodist Church, The Church of God (Anderson), and The Salvation Army ordain women, but they do not support gay marriage or ordination. Ordaining women is not a sin: it is a biblical tradition that goes back to Miriam, the sister of Moses, who was a prophet during the Exodus, and there are denominations who have always recognized that God does call women to preach and pastor, and we have been ordaining women for 100 years or more.

Sincerely,
Rev. Shawna R. B. Atteberry
The Church of the Nazarene

You can go here to read Catherine Booth’s Female Ministry or A Woman’s Right to Preach the Gospel.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink

All Grown Up?

Total cereal has a new commercial. A daughter discovers her mother’s old hip huggers, and says to her mom, “You used to fit into these?” The rest of the commercial shows the mother eating Total cereal while the daughter parades through the kitchen in the mother’s old jeans. At the end of the commercial the mother says, “I want those back,” and in the final scene we see the mother in jeans she wore when she was a teenager. Because every woman should be the same size she was when she was 15. Right. Diana Blaine has dealt with this very topic in two of her recent blog entries. In A Sad State of Affairs she observes that our culture’s obsession with keeping women as girls has gone from removing hair from our armpits and legs to removing pubic hair in pornography. Women are expected to stay in a state of perpetual girlhood through being skinny and hairless. In another post, Emergency, There’s a criminal in my living room! she evaluates the latest Yoplait yogurt commercial where the actress is trying to frantically hide her body with a red raft. When we finally see her we discover her to be a thin woman who looks great in her “little, itty-bitty yellow polka dot bikini” thanks to Yoplait. As Diana notes, she’s so thin, you can see her ribs. It’s not only secular feminists who have noticed this. In her book Holy Listening: The Art of Spiritual Direction, Margaret Guenther notes that most female bodily experiences are taboo:

Considering how inseparable woman’s physical being is from her spirituality, it is striking how much of her bodily experience is taboo for open discussion. Menstruation remains a secret topic, with most public mention in negative terms: does woman’s cyclical nature make her unstable and unreliable? Menopause is seen as either comic or pathetic, an exception being Margaret Meade’s joyous prayer of thanksgiving for the energy and zest of post-menopausal women. Pregnancy and birth are usually relegated to the women’s magazines, despite Luke’s exemplary theological treatment of the subject. And rarely addressed, in spiritual terms, is women’s own deep dislike of their bodies, their dissatisfaction with certain features, and their pervasive sense that they need to lose weight–literally to diminish themselves. . . . Since women’s most powerful and formative experiences are often the hidden, secret ones, they may seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and hence too homely for theological reflection (pp. 124-5).

Menstration, menopause, pregnancy are all taboo, even now. All of these bodily experiences mark us as women–grown-up, mature, independent–not girls nor teenagers. In my first post I wrote that I want to be comfortable with my body being a historical and theological record as the Korean women were. Again we see how our society tries to wipe clean the historical record of women’s bodies by insisting that fitting into the jeans one wore as a teenager is worthy goal to go after and attain. To be perfectly honest I have no desire to starve myself back into the size 5 jeans I wore over 20 years ago. I like being healthy and being at a healthy weight (not to mention my size 12 jeans are much more comfortable, thank you very much Total).

It disturbs me to see how our society encourages women to harm themselves to stay skinny, and that cosmetic surgery is becoming fairly normal. What disturbs me more is that the church is not dealing with this theologically (As Guenther noted this is too homely or insignificant for theological thought). This topic was brought up on on the CBE Scroll recently where it was also noted that our skewed view of women is now going worldwide with Asian women having breast enhancements and surgery to make their eyes larger. Neither the poster nor the commenters could think of the church or Christian culture actively engaging in helping women navigate our way through the unhealthy girlishness of our society.

As I have been typing this I have been trying to think of an answer or something to help, but right now I don’t have much. But this is definitely one of the areas I want to work in and write on. I know it needs to start with women being made in the image of God. What does that mean for women? How can that kind of theology help to correct the thin teenager model and exchange it for a theology of mature womanhood imaging God? Hopefully, there will be more to come.

Published by Shawna on | Permalink