-3-

Practical Ethics Series

The Bible and Women

Terry L Anderson

March 18, 2006

Primary Sources (Listed in order of extent of contribution):

·  John Shelby Spong. The Sins of Scriptures. 2005. Harper San Francisco.

·  The Holy Scriptures (various texts)

Introduction

In the Forum, we have often struggled with passages especially in the Old Testament that make some of us uncomfortable: passages dealing with ethnic cleansing, stoning, inequality of women, homosexuality and anti-Semitism.

John Shelby Spong, the retired Bishop of Newark, addresses the “problem” texts in the Scriptures – those that seem to advocate views or actions that many of us are uncomfortable with; those that have been used through Christian history to justify wars, actions and attitudes that are inconsistent with “enlightened” ethics. We will spend several sessions this spring examining some of these “problem” text and considering his solutions. Many of us will find his solutions too radical, his theology too liberal, his exegesis too little respecting the authority of Scriptures, his approach introducing as many or more problems than it solves, but I think that we will still find his arguments challenging and perhaps help us to find our own solutions (possibly unique for each of us) that are more acceptable than his and yet better than what we had.

In general, his approach is to suggest that the Scriptures are the result of sincere writers, but human writers with incomplete understanding, writing what they believe followed by editors (or redactors) adapting the writings to what they believed. His view leaves room for a sort of inspiration, but not one that guarantees freedom from error or bias, not one that insures authenticity. The Scriptures become a rich source of truth but one mixed with bias and error; not one that can be used as an authority with truth being easily extracted, but one in which truth can be found with effort. He is less clear about what superior standard can be used to separate truth from error.

He is strongest when he illustrates the evil that Christians have blamed on the Scriptures. He is strong when he finds opposing views, positive positions elsewhere in the Scriptures. He is weaker when he argues how we justify the mixture or choose between the contradictory teachings. He struggles to find a way to avoid discarding or marginalizing Scripture, to maintain a strong faith in God, a deep spirituality, a respect for Scripture and find in it a positive power, and yet avoid the evils some justify from it.

Exploring these areas has not always been a comfortable journey for me and I am well aware that many of my conclusions will not be comfortable for those who think of themselves as “simple believers.” Many of them will become quite threatened, even angry. That is why it is essential for my readers to be aware that I am doing this as a Christian, as a believer. That will surely be apparent before my readers complete these pages. My pledge is only that I will seek the truth openly. Duplicity has lived for far too long inside the leadership of the Christian church for me to be content to allow it to continue unchallenged.

…

I want to say in response that to claim that the scriptures are either divinely inspires or are the “Word of God” in any literal sense has been so destructive that I no longer want to be part of that kind of Christianity.

..

Do we honor God when we assume that the primitive consciousness found on the pages of scripture, even when it is attributed to God, is somehow righteous?

Today we will look at how he deals with the Bible’s position on women or the status of women in society. In later sessions we will examine issues of anti-Semitism and Homosexuality. Interestingly, he cites the violence that has been justified by citation to the Scriptures but does not address solutions to this other than in the context of children and anti-Semitism.

The Problem

Patriarchy

Gen 2:18-23

1 Cor 11:8-9: For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

There are many texts in the Torah, that maintain the asymmetry. A woman is unclean for one week after bearing a male child and two weeks after bearing a female.

This view was nearly universal in ancient and not-so-ancient society. He cites similar statements from Plator, Xenophon, sacred Hindu texts, Buddhism, Jewish prayers, and the Qur’an. He questions whether God is blessing these views or whether they unavoidably taint the work of writers who can think no other way.

Menstruation and Male Fear of Blood

Leviticus 12:2, 5; 15:19-24; 18:19

He seeks the source of this ritual uncleanness and finds no rational basis. He believes the origin is with the symbolism of blood representing life, and loss of blood death. Women are able to loose blood and yet live and thus must be protected by some supernatural force, mysterious and to be feared – clearly they should be avoided until this fearful spirit has left them.

They cannot be allowed to be involved with spiritual matters or sacraments since this unnatural force may come upon them.

Paul

Women must not be allowed to speak in church (1 Cor 14:34). Men should not marry unless they cannot control their passions (1 Cor 7:9). Women must cover the heads as a sign of respect (1 Cor 11:5ff). I permit no woman to each or to have authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12, a disciple of Paul’s).

Yet Paul was not single-minded. On this as on many topics, Paul was conflicted and expressed more than one view. At many points in his ministry he worked with and honored women for their work (Priscilla, wife of Aquila, Acts 18:2, 26; Lydia Acts 16:14, 40; Chloe, 1 Cor 1:11), and sends personal greetings to women in various epistles (Rom 16:3, 6, 7, 13, 15; Col 4:15). But his most overt countering text is Gal 3:26-28: In Christ … there is neither male nor female. This is revolutionary language, similar to the removal of the Jew/Gentile distinction. He is breaking with society and history.

Jesus

Jesus also has hints of a revolutionary view of women. He speaks respectfully of many. Speaks to them, instructing them or taking their spiritual lives as significant (woman at the well, the woman taken in adultery, Mary (sister of Martha). Spong draws amazing conclusions from two stories: the woman who anoints his feet, and the Mary and Martha story.

He compares the four versions of the woman who anoints his feet. The oldest Mark 14:3-9 and Matt 26:6-13 are nearly identical, occurring at the house of “Simon the leper.” In each Jesus is criticized for allowing the woman to touch him – a very traditional view, yet he rejects the criticism. In the third, Luke 7:36-50, the setting is “Simon the Pharisee” which heightens the contrast since the Pharisees where known for upholding tradition, and it occurs earlier in his ministry. In Luke adds to the drama by identifying the woman as a “woman of the city” or “a woman who has led a sinful life”, a prostitute. Christ not only allows a woman to touch him, but even a prostitute.

But Spong draws the most striking conclusions from the fourth in John 12:1-8. This one is again in Bethany, but does not occur at the house of anyone named Simon, but rather at the home of Mary and Martha. Mary, who anoints Jesus feet, is not a prostitute but a friend. Because of the similarities, many think of Mary (sister of Martha) as the anointer in Mark and Matthew as well although she isn’t named there. Spong believes that even for a female friend to touch Jesus would be breaking tradition, yet she is not condemned in this version and Jesus teaches no lesson from it. Spong draws the shocking conclusion that this was because Mary was Jesus’ wife. Only the touch of a wife would be so casually accepted. He goes on to the story of Mary and Martha, where Martha complains to Jesus that Mary is not helping with the food preparation. Spong sees it as significant the Martha comes to Jesus about this rather than directly to her sister. His conclusion is that this is because Mary is his wife, not a free agent and under his control – the traditional model. This seems a bit of a stretch but he uses it to support his view that the early church sanitized the Gospels, removing all references to a wife, but hints like this remained. He also wonders if this Mary and Mary of Magdala are the same. This would allow the prostitute in Luke’s account to be the same as in John’s. Mary of Magdala is traditionally also associated with the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) although there is no support in the text. He also analyzes the origins of “Madgala”. Here is no known historic village of that name. He believes it may come from “migdal” (same consonants) which was a tower used by shepherd to watch the sheep, and so might mean “tall” or “great”, ie, “Mary the Great” the title for Jesus wife to distinguish her from his mother (which again snuck through the redactors). This would also explain why Mary Magdalene is justified in asking the “gardener” for his body at the grave (as next of kin).

Conclusion

His argument is that Christ and Paul’s revolutionary concept on the equality of women was too much for the early church and editors purged the Gospels and Epistles of this view, but a few hints remain. Christ could only be respected as the epitome of purity if his relationships with women were sanitized; His wife expunged and converted into a prostitute, His mother a virgin. But the true message of the New Testament is the equality of women.

The church has so robbed Christianity of its strong, positive female role models that the modern world has had to invent Wonder Woman as a substitute.