The Bible treats women equal to men

[valsa]

I think I'm the only person who always LIKED that story. (To be fair, the bias would be that I'm a flakey person w/ADHD who has a sister who is/was the fundie-version of perfection)

I didn't see it as "enjoy the moment" as much as it was "hey, don't dis on someone ELSE for enjoying the moment"

Jesus doesn't go and hunt down Martha and say "you, stop playing the role of servant" (which would have been awesome) but when Martha says "hey, make Mary be a slave too!" he says "hey, she doesn't have to do the house/serving work--she's chosen something else; good for her. (I read an implied--'you could too' in there which I'm 'meh' about)"

I can't remember the story very well but I was a "good child" with a flaky sibling and it sounds like it could have been a situation were Martha was trying to cook up this huge feast for a crowd (and perhaps doing the associated cleaning up for the feast) with no help from Mary and might have wanted some help. Believe me, I've gotten left holding the bag when it comes to being responsible more than a few times. The cooking and cleaning had to be done by someone and if Martha had acted like Mary... would anything have gotten done? (Ugh, now I feel like the story's personal because I had a sibling who would gleefully skip out on doing what they were supposed to do because they knew I was too responsible to let it not get done. Same thing in school, with group projects. I'd end up doing most of the work because I cared a lot more about getting a good grade than the other kids)

[nolongerIFBx]

If you would like more information of Priscilla and the book of Hebrews please ask. :)

I've never heard this and I've taken classes on the Bible as literature at a state university so I can't completely blame my fundie childhood. I'd be interested in hearing more.

[dawbs]

I can't remember the story very well but I was a "good child" with a flaky sibling and it sounds like it could have been a situation were Martha was trying to cook up this huge feast for a crowd (and perhaps doing the associated cleaning up for the feast) with no help from Mary and might have wanted some help. Believe me, I've gotten left holding the bag when it comes to being responsible more than a few times. The cooking and cleaning had to be done by someone and if Martha had acted like Mary... would anything have gotten done? (Ugh, now I feel like the story's personal because I had a sibling who would gleefully skip out on doing what they were supposed to do because they knew I was too responsible to let it not get done. Same thing in school, with group projects. I'd end up doing most of the work because I cared a lot more about getting a good grade than the other kids)

I find this one to be a matter of perception.

I see Martha saying "I'm subscribed to traditional slave-like gender roles, make her do it too".

Because, yeah, someone has to cook the meal, but Martha was completely out of line to demand Mary do it. Of course, I'd love to know who DID make the meal--ideally, Jesus would have said "hey, you you and you, go help her!".

But that sort of thing isn't really included.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I find this one to be a matter of perception.

I see Martha saying "I'm subscribed to traditional slave-like gender roles, make her do it too".

Because, yeah, someone has to cook the meal, but Martha was completely out of line to demand Mary do it. Of course, I'd love to know who DID make the meal--ideally, Jesus would have said "hey, you you and you, go help her!".

But that sort of thing isn't really included.

If Jesus was so concerned about male/female equality he could have helped! I bet Martha would have appreciated it if he had just set the table, no need to turn water into wine or anything.

But, no, He liked the sound of his own divine voice.

[formergothardite]

Yes, the greatest lesson Jesus could have taught at that moment was to have gotten up, helped and encouraged other men to do the same. That would have sent the message that cooking isn't women's work and that if they want a meal they need to get up and help out.

[dawbs]

Eh I get that reading of it I just can't get behind it, in a use your gifts sorry of way.

My work hosts lectures with bigwigs that include dinner/eat-n-greet things. I hate when the guest out honor Decides to show how "of the people" he is by helpintg me with behind the scenes work-suddenly I have 10 people doing my job badly and while people can step in to help clear tables and organize visitors and take tickets I don't usually have a replacement guest of honor to mingle with guests and speak on particle physics handy.

[nolongerIFBx]

Yes, the greatest lesson Jesus could have taught at that moment was to have gotten up, helped and encouraged other men to do the same. That would have sent the message that cooking isn't women's work and that if they want a meal they need to get up and help out.

In John 21 He did make breakfast for the disciples. He didn't call a woman to come do it.

[formergothardite]

Yes, but there were no women around to cook in that story. Of course if there were no women the men would cook.

[RachelB]

*delurks and waves hello*

I think comparing John 21 and Luke 10:38-42 in part illustrates the difference between grilling (an acceptable dude-ly pastime) and cooking (women's work). :)

That passage where Jesus visits Martha and Mary has always troubled me, too. Because I have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility and a somewhat flaky younger sibling, I identify with Martha. In the sort of autobiography-inflected interpretation I've developed over time, Jesus seems to favor risk-taking, mistake-making younger siblings, rather than their dutiful and often resentful elders. (See also the prodigal son.) Because Jesus is teaching in a society where inheritance law favors the eldest child, that makes his preferences seem a little more counter-cultural to me. And sometimes I need to be reminded not to resent other people around me who "aren't doing their part," when nobody asked me to play Martha (Stewart) in the first place.

In reference to the original post-- much of the bible seems full of misogyny. In the purity codes, the amount of face time devoted to them, the range of possible lives and occupations available to them, men get the better deal. Still, I'm invested in approaching the bible through a feminist lens, because it's been a huge part of my life, and I'm not willing to give up on it. The liberal protestant denomination I grew up in-- the UCC-- has been ordaining women without incident since sometime in the 1800s.

My parents, both retired pastors, met in seminary. I believe that the misogyny of Christianity is cultural, rather than foundational. (I don't want to minimize how pervasive a cultural feature misogyny is, though, even in our branch of liberal Christianity. Mom's first few years of work were hard on her. She didn't have a single female colleague in easy driving distance for a long time. Her older male colleagues talked down to her. Somewhere in a scrapbook there's an awful article about her integrating the all-clergy volleyball team, complete with a photo focused on her legs. But she's very good at what she does, and she has kept involved as a chaplain since her retirement. I believe she felt a genuine call to ministry, whereas I believe my father felt a call to avoid going to Vietnam.) Had I ever seriously thought there was only one way to read the bible, I would have left the church long ago. But arguing about sermons and scripture over dinner provided my first introduction to critical thinking. (My father's a Calvinist. My mother's a Matthew Fox and Dietrich Bonhoeffer fan. I've evolved into a Spong-reading universalist. Good times.)

[deelaem]

*delurks and waves hello*

I think comparing John 21 and Luke 10:38-42 in part illustrates the difference between grilling (an acceptable dude-ly pastime) and cooking (women's work). :)

That passage where Jesus visits Martha and Mary has always troubled me, too. Because I have an overdeveloped sense of responsibility and a somewhat flaky younger sibling, I identify with Martha. In the sort of autobiography-inflected interpretation I've developed over time, Jesus seems to favor risk-taking, mistake-making younger siblings, rather than their dutiful and often resentful elders. (See also the prodigal son.) Because Jesus is teaching in a society where inheritance law favors the eldest child, that makes his preferences seem a little more counter-cultural to me. And sometimes I need to be reminded not to resent other people around me who "aren't doing their part," when nobody asked me to play Martha (Stewart) in the first place.

In reference to the original post-- much of the bible seems full of misogyny. In the purity codes, the amount of face time devoted to them, the range of possible lives and occupations available to them, men get the better deal. Still, I'm invested in approaching the bible through a feminist lens, because it's been a huge part of my life, and I'm not willing to give up on it. The liberal protestant denomination I grew up in-- the UCC-- has been ordaining women without incident since sometime in the 1800s.

My parents, both retired pastors, met in seminary. I believe that the misogyny of Christianity is cultural, rather than foundational. (I don't want to minimize how pervasive a cultural feature misogyny is, though, even in our branch of liberal Christianity. Mom's first few years of work were hard on her. She didn't have a single female colleague in easy driving distance for a long time. Her older male colleagues talked down to her. Somewhere in a scrapbook there's an awful article about her integrating the all-clergy volleyball team, complete with a photo focused on her legs. But she's very good at what she does, and she has kept involved as a chaplain since her retirement. I believe she felt a genuine call to ministry, whereas I believe my father felt a call to avoid going to Vietnam.) Had I ever seriously thought there was only one way to read the bible, I would have left the church long ago. But arguing about sermons and scripture over dinner provided my first introduction to critical thinking. (My father's a Calvinist. My mother's a Matthew Fox and Dietrich Bonhoeffer fan. I've evolved into a Spong-reading universalist. Good times.)

But the very basis of Christianity, as well as 99% of other religions, is that their deity is male. The misogyny just flows from that basic premise.

[Wandering]

I understand the question and general bewilderedness others have in regards to Christian egalitarianism. As a Christian and ex fundy-lite I've spent a lot of time considering the question myself. On one hand I'm a feminist and on the other hand want to serve my God. It took me a long time to figure out where I stood on the matter and am still discovering new things. First and foremost the Bible is a very, very old document that was written many years ago based upon a nomadic agriculturally centered society. Times have changed. The world is a different place and most Christian egalitarians believe that instead of trying to live lives identical to Biblical characters (which is near impossible) our responsibility is to apply the basic principles that Jesus taught (tolerance, acceptance, loving thy neighbor, etc) to our modern 21st century world. For instance, who are the lepers of today's society? The gays, minorities, and women. Therefore in the tradition of Christ we accept, love, and promote them. Secondly, the Bible is based upon the languages of ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew which to our English (NKJ) ears are very different. For example the Hebrew word intended for "helpmeet" is very different than what we think it means in English (I've heard translations of companion, friend, and fellow gardener). Third, the viewpoint that I don't know if I believe in myself but is interesting nonetheless, is that when Eve tempted Adam she damned womankind. However, with the coming of Jesus all sins are forgiven and we all start afresh and viewed as the same in God's eyes. Hope this explanation helps I'm only 18 and am still coming to terms with what I was taught and what I believe in now.

*quietly goes back to lurking*

[Cran]

So you basically say it doesn't matter what the bible says, you only follow what you believe to be the "spirit of Jesus" or something? Well, what do you need the bible for?

[RachelB]

But the very basis of Christianity, as well as 99% of other religions, is that their deity is male. The misogyny just flows from that basic premise.

I get that orthodox Christianity presumes a male trinity. But I also believe that an institution that refuses to evolve as the people in it learn new things and think new thoughts is an institution whose days are numbered. I grew up around people who insisted on inclusive language and imagery for God (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-Imagini ... conference), and I don't think of God as male (or binarily gendered, for that matter).

This is not to say that any branch of Christianity is over its misogynist hangover. But the congregations I have gravitated toward are no more misogynist than American culture in general, or the field of study I'm working in right now in particular (English and American literature, which is less of a white dude celebration than it was a few generations ago, but has a long way to go). As of 1994, the denomination I grew up in had 25% female pastors (http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html), many of whom were actively involved in trying to make the church more inclusive. That number isn't what I'd like it to be, but it's better than the percentage of women currently in either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives.

[ladidah]

I get that orthodox Christianity presumes a male trinity.

Far be it from me to quibble over the word "orthodox." Still, it's worth noting that many, shall we say, conservative Christians also believe that God is neither male nor female. (John Eldredge, anyone? I don't think we could deny that he has pretty definite opinions about gender roles. ;) However, even he claims that God is genderless, and he's far from alone among conservatives.)

[RachelB]

Yeah, "conservative" would have been a better word there. :oops: Thank you for that tidbit about John Eldredge-- I didn't know that.

[alba]

But the very basis of Christianity, as well as 99% of other religions, is that their deity is male. The misogyny just flows from that basic premise.

Not quite. In many branches of Christianity, including Catholicism I believe, God is genderless. Occasionally s/he's even referred to as female or as a mother. The use of male pronouns to refer to God is generally considered to be the result of human sexist culture, which views the male as default and, in languages like English (and I think Hebrew), traditionally uses the male pronoun where gender is ambiguous. Likewise calling God "The Father" refers to God's role as loving, parental figure but also as provider, which in a patriarchal society naturally falls to the father. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is an example of a denomination that considers the portrayal of God as male to be a cultural one:

Christians as well as people of other faiths have portrayed God in a variety of ways. They have projected on God what was familiar to them. ... Such a process has led to projecting racial and ethnic characteristics, gender and age attributes to God. It has contributed to a dominant prevailing image of God within Christianity as an elderly male, ethnically and racially belonging to a European community, and embodying patriarchal values.

(archive.elca.org/onebody/bs1_name_and_gender_of_god.html)

I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with this argument, because I don't believe the aforementioned God exists, but it's a simplification to state that the Christian God is male.

[Cran]

Perhaps it is fair to say the Christian God is perceived as male, even if the theology behind it does not day so.

Calling a being "father" will usually lead to identifying this being as male, no matter if a theologian or two say "God has more from a mother than a father" and the Spirit is sometimes seen as the female element in the trinity.

If the God is widely perceived as male, this will dictate the actions of people with this perception and will, I think, lead to a religion that has misogynistic tendencies.

[ladidah]

Cran, that's a fair point, and I think it's largely true, even among Christians who are trying to work against that tendency.

[RR88]

If God really viewed women as equal to men, I think he would have made that clear in the gazillion and one laws he gave. He didn't. The laws give power to men and not women, so I just don't see how it is possible for the Bible to be God's divine word and also show that God treated women and men the same.

I'm with you in this case. God never outlawed rape, for example, but God does ask rape victims to marry their attackers. How anyone could be a feminist while worshiping the deity (deities, depending on your interpretation) of the Bible is beyond me.

[RR88]

I also think that the agenda of those who translated the Bible into English is at play - the KJV translators attempted to erase Jesus' Jewish heritage, and imo it's likely that they and other translators changed the meaning of verses to do with gender.

The original Hebrew speaks to a male audience.

[alba]

Perhaps it is fair to say the Christian God is perceived as male, even if the theology behind it does not day so.

Calling a being "father" will usually lead to identifying this being as male, no matter if a theologian or two say "God has more from a mother than a father" and the Spirit is sometimes seen as the female element in the trinity.

If the God is widely perceived as male, this will dictate the actions of people with this perception and will, I think, lead to a religion that has misogynistic tendencies.

Yes, I agree. There is definitely misogyny in Christianity, and I'm not denying that. For many people who believe in a Christian God, however, there's the matter of separating what they believe to be God's own truth from the misogyny inherent in the cultures of the people who wrote the bible, compiled the bible, and established Christian tradition over the past two millenia.

If you read any primary document when studying history, it's purportedly an accurate account but there will be elements influenced by whoever wrote it and the writer's cultural background. A lot of comparatively recent European historical documents contain boatloads of sexism and misogyny, but although that source's portrayal of women is inaccurate and influenced by the culture of the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that one should dismiss everything contained within it. For more liberal Christians who do not believe in the bible's infallibility, a similar process is undergone when studying the bible to ascertain what is "God's word" and what is human culture.

[Cran]

Cherry-picking through the bible, while giving more pleasant results to those who do, makes the claim that it is God's word and infallible seem rather odd. And it is so convenient, everything not to one's own liking is "cultural".

I asked the question above already: If a believer takes only selected parts of the bible, the ones pleasing to him, what does he need the bible for? What makes him a Christian if he does not follow the whole bible? Being a nice guy and love all people - that can be had in a lot of religions and from straight atheists as well.

[debrand]

Most Christians that I know say that their god is genderless however, I don't know if they believe that emotionally. Once on Catholic Answers' forum, I read a thread in which the participants were willing to admit that god is genderless but they balked at any female language directed at god. Their reasoning was that the bible god chose to present himself as male for a reason and we should respect that. So, individuals can intellectually understand that god is genderless and yet, have an emotional reaction against the same god being called by female pronouns. Despite what they say, they need for god to be male.

If Christian god is genderless why don't Christians occasionally call it goddess? Or why not refer to the deity as IT instead of HE?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/resea ... red-47488/

Public Opinion Strategies survey, released Wednesday, shows that 32 percent of Americans who showed up at the polls this week identified themselves as part the Christian conservative movement. FFC says Tuesday night’s conservative turnout was the largest ever recorded in a midterm history

There are a lot of conservative Christians where I live. Most of them have very definite views on gender. Their wives might work and wear pants, but the husband is supposed to lead the family. They honestly believe that their views are biblical and a straight reading of the bible makes their views appear correct.

As I was leaving religion one problem that I had was the different interpretation of the bible. If bible diety is so all knowing, all powerful, why couldn't he create a straight forward text that couldn't be misinterpretated or that didn't need knowledge about early Christian social history to understand? How good a god can he/it/she be if the deity doesn't care that future people will die over what interpretation is correct or be willing to take rights from others because the holy text is vague and contradictory?

[formergothardite]

Yes, I agree. There is definitely misogyny in Christianity, and I'm not denying that. For many people who believe in a Christian God, however, there's the matter of separating what they believe to be God's own truth from the misogyny inherent in the cultures of the people who wrote the bible, compiled the bible, and established Christian tradition over the past two millenia.

If you read any primary document when studying history, it's purportedly an accurate account but there will be elements influenced by whoever wrote it and the writer's cultural background. A lot of comparatively recent European historical documents contain boatloads of sexism and misogyny, but although that source's portrayal of women is inaccurate and influenced by the culture of the time, that doesn't necessarily mean that one should dismiss everything contained within it. For more liberal Christians who do not believe in the bible's infallibility, a similar process is undergone when studying the bible to ascertain what is "God's word" and what is human culture.

So the answer is, no, the Bible does not treat women equally to men because society at that time didn't?

I agree that it doesn't. And I can't see where people like fluttershies, who do claim that all the OT laws were divinely sent by God, get that those laws treat men and women equally.

If God really viewed men and women as equal and he really wrote all those laws, then wouldn't he have made damn sure that that was clear? Wouldn't there be no doubt by looking at the original texts that men and women are equals in all ways?

[alba]

Cherry-picking through the bible, while giving more pleasant results to those who do, makes the claim that it is God's word and infallible seem rather odd. And it is so convenient, everything not to one's own liking is "cultural".

I asked the question above already: If a believer takes only selected parts of the bible, the ones pleasing to him, what does he need the bible for? What makes him a Christian if he does not follow the whole bible? Being a nice guy and love all people - that can be had in a lot of religions and from straight atheists as well.

Not all Christians do claim the bible is infallible, though, or that it's the literal word of God. They believe it to be inspired by God but recorded by fallible humans. The basic "standard" for being Christian is believing that Jesus is the son of God (either literally or symbolically) and he died to save sinners. That's what makes people Christian according to most Christian doctrine, not following everything in the bible.

Some people, then, believe that the God they worship views men and women as equal, but that that God's laws were not recorded in an egalitarian manner because of the inherent sexism in Biblical cultures. I wonder how much of this is trying to reconcile personal beliefs about equality with a belief in God, but I'd rather encounter someone like this than someone who is dead set on the idea that their mythical deity thinks I'm inferior for something as arbitrary as gender.