Jesus and the Feminists? E-Book

Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 448

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2008

Beschreibung

This resource provides a detailed survey and critique of various feminist interpretations of Jesus and offers a biblical view of men and women in the church and home. The feminist movement has affected every aspect of political and social America, and Christians are becoming increasingly aware of how this movement has impacted the church. The feminist movement has changed the way evangelicals view not only themselves, but also the very Word of God. Jesus and the Feminists begins by offering a brief survey of the feminist movement, revealing the radical misunderstanding of Jesus that has resulted from this movement. Köstenberger then critiques the relevant works of well-known feminist scholars and the ways they interpret certain passages of Scripture related to Jesus and his approach to women. This practical resource points the way to a better understanding of the biblical message regarding Jesus' stance toward women and offers both men and women a biblical view of their roles in the church and the home.

Leseprobe

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign-up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

“Kostenberger gives us a here a solid, sad, scrupulously fair case study of ideology deflecting exegesis over an entire generation. She shows conclusively that the attempts of a long series of scholars to find Jesus affirming women’s leadership in some way have entirely failed. Surely this is an important cautionary tale for our times.”

—J. I. Packer, Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology, Regent College

“Who is Jesus? Was he a chauvinist? A feminist crusader? Or an egalitarian emancipator of women? In this significant work, Köstenberger investigates whether the portraits of Jesus painted by proponents of women’s equality truly fit the gospel narrative. Her analysis of underlying hermeneutics is careful and concise. Her conclusions, balanced and well-reasoned. Is Jesus who they say he is? This is a valuable resource for all who seek to answer this all-important question.”

—Mary A. Kassian, Distinguished Professor of Women’s Studies, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Köstenberger expertly surveys the scholarly work of feminists on the person of Jesus Christ. We are treated to the entire landscape of feminist scholarship on Jesus, from radical feminists to egalitarian evangelicals. Most important, Köstenberger subjects the claims of feminist scholarship to critical scrutiny, showing that they fail to measure up with the teaching of Scripture. Köstenberger’s criticisms are irenic, but at the same time they show the deficiencies of the feminist paradigm.”

—Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“The strength of this manuscript lies in the way it surveys the main figures of English-language theological feminism, carefully noting developments, differences, and trends. I know of no survey to compare with it. The hermeneutical analysis at each step is introductory, accessible, and sensible. Highly recommended.”

—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Provides an excellent case-study on just why a correct hermeneutic matters. Even more to the point: getting Jesus right matters! Köstenberger should be commended for winsome and scholarly dismantling of feminist distortions of Jesus, thus providing assistance toward this goal.”

—Bruce A. Ware, T. Rupert and Lucille Coleman, Professor of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Köstenberger succeeds at bringing historical perspective to bear on feminist understanding of Scripture and Christ. Her analyses of radical, reformist, and evangelical wings of this movement are methodical, clear, thorough, and mature. Her findings are highly significant. They force the question, Is Jesus Lord over Western culture’s ideologies or their servant? Today a new generation stands poised to replace the aging leaders who ushered feminism into our churches. Köstenberger points the way to honor their concerns while avoiding their unjustified concessions.”

—Robert W. Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary

“Köstenberger has done a remarkable job in linking carefully documented scholarly research with very practical conclusions in such a way as to enable students and scholars to explore what interpretations feminists are peddling in the marketplace of ideas. I am grateful to have such a resource to use as textbook and supplementary reading for my classes in women’s studies.”

—Dorothy Kelley Patterson, Former Professor of Women’s Studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

“In this insightful and winsome book, Köstenberger shows that the debate over feminism is not, first of all, about whose name has ‘Reverend’ in front of it. It is, first of all, and last of all, about Jesus. Those wishing to engage the feminist culture all around us will find an excellent resource in this volume.”

—Russell D. Moore, President, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

“This book is an exceptionally valuable guide to feminist writings about Jesus. It summaries the entire history of feminist interpretation, summarizing each author fairly and then providing a thoughtful critique. Kostenberger’s patient, clear argument shows that the multiple feminist reinterpretations of Jesus are inconsistent with the actual text of the Gospels. A very useful, readable resource for those who want to understand how feminism has continually reinterpreted the Bible to advance its own agenda.”

—Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary

“Jesus and the Feminists is carefully written and easy to read and provides a much needed resource for understanding the hermeneutics of various feminist works. Anyone who seeks to understand the feminist movement in the church and the complex arguments concerning the role of women in the church would benefit from this volume.”

—M. Sydney Park, Associate Professor of Divinity (New Testament), Beeson Divinity School

“This is an outstanding, comprehensive study of feminist hermeneutic. It extensively deals with the historical development of feminism, the variety of feminist positions, and the development within each position. It shows that it is impossible for conservative evangelical theology ever to accept any of the variety of views held within feminism.”

—Adrio König, Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology, University of South Africa

“This book is a helpful resource for every woman who has a genuine desire to more thoroughly understand the theological implications of feminism and what the Bible actually says about Jesus. This meaty material is well worth the time to read and consider, as no question is more important than who Jesus is.”

—Carolyn McCulley, author, Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World

Jesus and the Feminists: Who Do They Say That He Is?

Copyright © 2008 by Margaret E. Köstenberger

Published by Crossway Books a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers 1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law.

Cover design: Jessica Dennis Cover illustration: Veer Images Design and typesetting: Lakeside Design Plus First printing 2008 Printed in the United States of America

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture references marked NIV are from The Holy Bible: New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-58134-959-7 PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-0466-2 Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-0467-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Köstenberger, Margaret Elizabeth.     Jesus and the feminists : who do they say that He is? / Margaret E. Köstenberger.        p. cm.     Includes bibliographical references and index.     ISBN 978-1-58134-959-7 (tpb)      1. Jesus Christ—Person and offices. 2. Feminist theology. 3. Bible—Feminist criticism. I. Title.   BT205.K67 2008    232.082—dc22

2008011651

To those women who are most precious in my life: my mother, Mary Gerrard, with gratitude for everything you have done for me; my daughters, Lauren and Tahlia, with love, affection, and friendship.

May you be drawn close to the Lord Jesus and serve him ever more faithfully.

“The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.”

—Proverbs 14:1 (NIV)

CONTENTS

List of Tables

Acknowledgments

Part 1: Foundations

1 All We’re Meant to Be: Feminism Confronts the Church

2 What’s at Stake: “It’s Hermeneutics!”

Part 2: Jesus and Radical Feminism

3 Mary Daly: Overcoming the Christian Fixation on Jesus

4 Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: Godding and Omnigender

5 Daphne Hampson: After Christianity, What?

Part 3: Jesus and Reformist Feminism

6 Letty Russell: Liberated to Become Human

7 Rosemary Radford Ruether: Womanguides and Women-church

8 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: Jesus’ Alleged “Discipleship of Equals”

9 Kathleen Corley and Others: The Case of the Crumbling Paradigm

10 The Feminist Companion and the New Face of Feminism

Part 4: Jesus and Evangelical Feminism (Egalitarianism)

11 The Early Years: Emancipationz

12 The Maturing Movement: Increasing Complexity

13 Recent Contributions: Creativity and Consolidation

Part 5: Jesus and the Gospels: An Evangelical Non-feminist Reading

14 Who Do You Say That I Am? A Look at the Gospels

Conclusion

Appendix 1: Feminist Scholarship on Jesus: Who Do They Say That He Is?

Appendix 2: The Nature of Biblical Interpretation

Bibliography

TABLES

1.1: The Three Waves of Feminism

1.2: The First Wave of Feminism

1.3: The Second Wave of Feminism

1.4: The Three Types of Feminism

2.1: Special Issues in the Feminist Debate

6.1: Types of Reformist Feminism

9.1: Major Feminist Critiques of Fiorenza’s Theory of Jesus’ “Discipleship of Equals”

11.1: Evangelical Feminism: The Early Years (1966–1986)

12.1: Evangelical Feminism: The Maturing Movement (1987–1999)

13.1: Evangelical Feminism: Recent Contributions (2000–Present)

14.1: Basic Hermeneutical Tasks for Studying Scripture

14.2: Major Passages on Jesus and Women in the Gospels

14.3: Jesus and Women in the Gospel of Matthew

14.4: Jesus and Women in the Gospel of Mark

14.5: Jesus and Women in the Gospel of Luke

14.6: Male-Female Pairs in the Gospel of Luke

14.7: Jesus and Women in the Gospel of John

A1.1: Feminist Scholarship on Jesus: Who Do They Say That He Is?

A2.1: The Three Steps of Contextual Exegesis

A2.2: General Hermeneutical Principles

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to those who have guided and helped me in my research for this volume: Adrio König, my dissertation mentor, who represented an opposing viewpoint and sharpened my thinking; and my husband, Andreas, who supported me in this project in ways too numerous to mention. Thank you also, Lauren, Tahlia, David, and Timothy, for your patience while I worked on this book. May God bless all of you.

Over the years I have benefited spiritually from many special individuals God has provided to mentor and instruct me: pastors, seminary professors and their wives, and friends. Thanks also to my local church, Richland Creek Community Church, for providing a context for ministering with and mentoring women. I am also grateful for my students in the Women and Biblical Interpretation class at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary with whom I have had stimulating discussions on the subject and who encouraged me that a book on the topics of hermeneutics and women’s issues would be meeting a vital need in the lives of women. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Lydia Brownback for going the extra mile in editing this book; to Allan Fisher for his encouragement and guidance in revising the manuscript; and to the dedicated staff of Crossway Books for producing this volume in such a timely and competent fashion.

May you who read this book be drawn more closely to the Lord Jesus and be encouraged to serve him ever more faithfully. Together, let us aspire to the biblical portrait of mature women in the church: “faithful to her husband . . . well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds” (1 Tim. 5:9–10 NIV).

PART 1FOUNDATIONS

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

—Romans 1:18–19

When Jesus was at a critical juncture in his ministry, he took his closest followers aside and asked them a very simple yet profound question: “Who do people say that I am?” (Mark 8:27). When they gave him a variety of answers, Jesus, even more pointedly, followed up with another question:

“But who do you say that I am?” (v. 29). In the end, Jesus’ point was that every person must come to their own decision regarding Jesus’ identity, regardless of what anyone else says about him.

Over the centuries there has been no more influential or controversial figure than Jesus. At the beginning of the last century, the German theologian Albert Schweitzer chronicled the variegated portraits of Jesus in his famous The Quest of the Historical Jesus.1After several hundred pages of survey of other scholars’ opinions on Jesus, Schweitzer concluded that their understanding depended considerably more on their own contexts and biases than on the actual testimony of Scripture. For many, Schweitzer concluded, looking for the historical Jesus was like looking in the mirror—what they saw was not Jesus but themselves.2

In a sense, this book represents a kind of sequel to Schweitzer’s work but with a more narrow focus: chronicling the feminist quest of the historical Jesus. We will see that what emerges from feminist scholarship on Jesus is not one version of the true Jesus but many different accounts of who feminists perceive Jesus to be. This strikingly confirms Schweitzer’s diagnosis of the scholarship he surveyed. A full century after him, people still claim to reconstruct Jesus “as he really was,” resulting in a large variety of portraits even among those who share a basic feminist viewpoint.

These divergent understandings of Jesus found among feminists, in turn, raise concerns regarding the viability of feminism at large. Since feminists are not able to come to an essential consensus on Jesus’ true identity, the validity of feminist biblical interpretation itself comes into question. The evidence shows that the feminist quest for self-fulfillment and self-realization leads to a distortion of the message of the Bible. In an attempt to fit Jesus into their feminist mold, feminists are ultimately kept from experiencing the fulfillment they are seeking, the joy that comes only from living life in keeping with God’s truth as revealed in his Word.

The message of the Bible for us as women is certainly vital, though often countercultural. Attention to its teaching is essential for us to live spiritually vibrant lives in a world that vies for compromise, accommodation, and independence from the authority structures in which God wants us to serve. In the case studies that follow, I have tried to supply you with the facts—the story of these women and their views of Jesus—so that you can form your own opinion as to whether their positions are tenable and biblical. As you read on, monitor attentively how the answer given by various feminist writers to Jesus’ question, “But who do you say that I am?” squares with the biblical answer: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”

(Matt. 16:16).

1. A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (London: A. & C. Black, 1968).

2. See also H. Osborne, ed., Whom Do Men Say That I Am? A Collection of the Views of the Most Notable Christian and Non-Christian Modern Authors about Jesus of Nazareth

(London: Faber & Faber, 1932), which, among others, includes selections by A. Harnack, J. H. Newman, G. K. Chesterton, D. F. Strauss, L. Tolstoi, F. Nietzsche, B. Russell, E. Renan, R. Browning, M. Arnold, G. B. Shaw, H. G. Wells, and D. H. Lawrence.

1 ALL WE’RE MEANT TO BE:FEMINISM CONFRONTS THE CHURCH

Today we stand at the crossroads. As Christians we can no longer dodge the “woman problem.”

To argue that women are equal in creation but subordinate in function is no more defensible than “separate but equal” schools for the races.

—Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (1974)1

It is an undisputable fact that over the course of church history women have been misunderstood and undervalued. In the first few centuries of the Christian era, women were generically blamed for Eve’s sin and viewed as temptresses and morally inferior. Only slowly did the Enlightenment change people’s attitudes toward women, and even fairly recent American history reveals that women were denied basic human rights.

On March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams wrote in her famous letter to her husband, Congressman John Adams, “I desire you would Remember [sic ] the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors” in the “new code of laws.” John chose not to grant her request, and “all men” were pronounced equal in the Declaration of Independence. It was less than a century ago that women received the privilege to vote and were given equal pay for equal work, along with many other common human freedoms in America.

While it is certainly healthy and appropriate for women to be valued and to receive these kinds of liberties, a woman who is committed to God and his purposes will want to be open and submissive to the plan God has for her in Scripture. It is true that in the midst of the conflicting voices on how a woman’s identity is to be construed in this world, determining and practicing what the Bible has to say and what Jesus’ own teaching and practice were with regard to women is a challenge.

Many influential feminist voices have risen to challenge the long-held conservative interpretation of Scripture regarding women, and it is my hope to honestly address and wrestle with these alternative views on Jesus in order to enable women to clarify and lay aside the misunderstandings or misrepresentations that linger. This direct confrontation should help to clear up the confusion and wavering in women who desire to serve him in committed submission. True freedom comes from obedience to God’s will.

In order to set the stage for the study of Jesus’ approach to women, the treatment below will begin with a survey of the rise of feminism. This will be followed by an explanation of some of the most important issues impacting the feminist interpretation of Scripture. The remainder of the book will focus on and evaluate each of the major schools of feminist thought on the topic of Jesus and women.

Table 1.1: The Three Waves of Feminism

Movement

Rise of Movement

Central Concern

The First Wave

1830s

Racial and social justice

The Second Wave

1960s

Gender equality

The Third Wave

1990s

Radical pursuit of feminine self-realization

The First Wave of Feminism

The period of church history leading up to the Protestant Reformation is a good place to begin examining the rise of the feminist movement, a time when ecclesiastical authority was firmly vested in the hands of men. The Reformation itself, with its emphasis on the right and obligation of individual believers to study the Scriptures for themselves, embodied the seeds of a greater consciousness of the value of women. This consciousness led certain women to assert their right to preach and teach.2

Among the first was Anne Hutchinson, who was condemned for dissenting from Puritan orthodoxy in 1638.3 Later, women rose to a prominent role in the campaign to abolish slavery in the American South, a campaign that extended also to women’s rights. This quest for legal equality of women in conjunction with the appeal for the abolition of slavery is commonly known as the “first wave” of feminism.4

In the 1830s, Mary Stewart was the first to advance issues of gender equality and social justice in the United States.

The Grimké sisters, Angelina and Sarah, contributed the treatises “Appeal to the Christian Women in the South” (1836) and “Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women” (1837), respectively, claiming that the Bible had been misunderstood and mistranslated.5

The Seneca Falls “Declaration on Women’s Rights” issued in 1848 summed up women’s concerns with regard to the male-dominated system in their day.

The Quaker Lucretia Coffin Mott argued in an 1849 sermon that Scripture was not supremely authoritative or divinely inspired. In the same year, Antoinette Brown published an article in the Oberlin Quarterly in which she set forth the argument that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 merely proscribe inappropriate teaching by women.6She was ordained in the Congregational Church, New York, in 1853—probably the first American woman to undergo ordination.

Other outspoken women in the second half of the nineteenth century included Catherine Booth, cofounder of the Salvation Army; Frances Willard, who established the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; and Katharine Bushnell, leader of women’s equality Bible studies.

First-wave nineteenth-century feminists used two primary methods for interpreting Scripture. The first method sought to counter the argument of those who limited the role of women by reasoning from passages that spoke of the “equality”7of men and women in Christ. The second method made use of female characters in Scripture that could serve as role models for women in leadership, such as Deborah, Ruth, and Esther.8Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a more critical approach began to take hold. This approach labeled the actual biblical texts as sexist and challenged their integrity, including their view of women. All of these approaches mark the first stage of feminist hermeneutics—methods of interpretation—and form the foundation of feminist biblical interpretation.

The rising tide of women active in Christian ministry and scholarship reached a culmination point in The Woman’s Bible, edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1895, 1898).9The work resembles a commentary more than a translation, with twenty women contributors enlisted to comment on selected biblical passages judged significant for women.10

Stanton herself did not consider the Mosaic law to be inspired,11yet she acknowledged the powerful influence of the Bible as the bedrock of male-dominated Western law and civilization. Believing that women’s emancipation would be impossible if Scripture’s position continued to be accepted, Stanton applied a supposed “higher criticism” to erode its authority, particularly with regard to biblical teaching on women.12The historicity of biblical narratives was challenged and certain criteria of authenticity were applied to test their reliability. In so doing, Stanton attempted to correct traditional interpretations of passages related to women and sought to achieve legislative reform through a reinterpretation of the Bible.

Table 1.2: The First Wave of Feminism

Major Figures

Significance and Contribution

Angelina Grimké

“Appeal to the Christian Women in the South” (1836)

Sarah Grimké

“Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women” (1837)

Antoinette Brown

First American woman to be ordained (1853)

Catherine Booth

Cofounder of Salvation Army

Frances Willard

Founder of Woman’s Christian Temperance Union

Katharine Bushnell

Leader of women’s equality Bible studies

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Editor of and contributor to

The Woman’s Bible

(1895, 1898)

The Second Wave of Feminism

Through the efforts of Stanton, her friend Susan B. Anthony, and many others, women in America gained the right to vote in 1919.13 The decades subsequent to this female milestone (1920–1960) saw little growth in the women’s movement. Only when American society entered a major social upheaval in the 1960s, with an anti-establishment message and a civil rights emphasis, did modern-day feminism emerge. Initially, this second wave of feminism was a radical, secular phenomenon seeking only to extend the feminist movement to the social and economic realm.14

It received its major impetus from the French author Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949; English translation 1952).15In the United States, women such as Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique (1964) and first president of the National Organization of Women (NOW) founded in 1966, and Gloria Steinem, who launched Ms. magazine in 1971, which she edited until 1987, also had a large impact on the general culture as they sought to promote women’s emancipation in the larger society, the workplace, and the home.16

Soon, however, Christian feminists took up the task of providing an interpretation of Scripture that sought to give special consideration to women’s concerns and interests, especially in the ecclesiastical realm, and this had a marked impact on Christian theology.

Table 1.3: The Second Wave of Feminism

Major Figures and Groups

Significance and Contribution

Simone de Beauvoir

The Second Sex

(1949; English translation 1952)

Betty Friedan

The Feminist Mystique

(1964)

Gloria Steinem

Launched Ms. magazine (1971)

Evangelical Women’s Caucus

Emphasis on social action, split over homosexuality (1973)

Christians for Biblical Equality

Emphasis on gender equality in all spheres of life (1986)

Developing feminist theologies within existing cultural and social contexts included the African-American “womanist” and the Hispanic mujerista theology in America, as well as emerging feminist theologies from European, Latin American, Asian, and African origins.17Feminist theology, in its diverse manifestations, confronted the issue of authority, challenging traditional understandings and seeking to address the patriarchal and sexist domination and marginalization of women in all sectors of society—political, social, and religious.

The term thealogy, coined by Canadian Naomi Goldenberg, called for reflection on the divine feminine and on coinage of feminist terms. Hence, a major task of feminist theology was the rethinking of traditional male symbols and concepts in an effort to eliminate patriarchy and legitimize female power.

It was at a conference in Chicago in 1973, “Evangelicals for Social Action,” that the Evangelical Women’s Caucus was started. From 1975 to 1983 the movement grew, but so did tensions regarding biblical interpretation and inerrancy. An organizational fracture took place in 1986 when divergent views on the authority of Scripture emerged surrounding the issue of homosexuality. This led to the establishment of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), a leading advocate of biblical or evangelical feminism, also called egalitarianism owing to its emphasis on women’s equality to men in all spheres of life.18

Over time, three general groups of feminists emerged: (1) radical feminists, (2) reformist feminists, and (3) biblical evangelical feminists or egalitarians.19In simple terms, radical feminism rejected the Bible and Christianity as unusable because of their male patriarchal bias. Instead, it focused on feminine religious experience as a key to interpretation. Reformist feminism essentially rejected Christian tradition about women and used the Bible as a means to reconstruct a “proper” positive theology. However, the Bible itself was not seen as inerrant or authoritative. The third movement, evangelical feminism, rejected a critical stance toward Scripture. Evangelical feminists said that nothing in the Bible should be rejected, and Scripture was seen as teaching complete male-female equality.20

Table 1.4: The Three Types of Feminism

Type of Feminism

Major Tenet/Stance toward Scripture

Radical Feminism

Rejects Bible and Christianity because of their patriarchal bias

Reformist Feminism

Uses Bible as means to reconstruct “positive theology” for women

Evangelical Feminism

The Bible, rightly interpreted, teaches complete gender equality

The 1980s witnessed the first conservative responses to evangelical feminism, including works by Susan Foh and James Hurley.21In addition, further works advocating the egalitarian viewpoint, such as those by Mary Evans and Mary Hayter, appeared.22Two North American organizations were established during this period. One, which promoted egalitarianism, was the above-mentioned group Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE), and the other group, rooted in complementarianism, was The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW).23Subsequently, the hermeneutical and exegetical dimension of this debate was explored with increasing sophistication.24 Gender wars over men’s and women’s roles in the home, the church, and society were raging.

The Third Wave of Feminism

The most recent development of feminism is often referred to as Third Wave feminism. Its beginnings can be traced to the early 1990s. Third Wave feminism is characterized by an even more radical pursuit of feminine self-realization completely removed from any guiding Christian principles. For this reason it is not addressed in this book where the focus is on the feminist use of Scripture with regard to Jesus and his approach to women.

We will now look at some of the major interpretive issues affecting the feminist understanding of Jesus and then start our study with radical feminists.25

1. L. Scanzoni and N. Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation (Waco, TX: Word, 1974), 205.

2. W. Baird,History of New Testament Research, Vol. 2: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003), 331–32, 335–37.

3. See also C. Bolt, The Women’s Movements in the United States and Britain from the 1790s to the 1920s (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993), 19, who refers to Mary Astell, whose anonymous publications appeared primarily between 1694 and 1705, as “perhaps the best-known English feminist before Mary Wollstonecraft” a century later.

4. Bolt, in ibid., 26, also mentions that, in the 1820s, Catherine Beecher, daughter of the well-known Congregational preacher Lyman Beecher, opened a female seminary in Hartford, Connecticut. She notes that Beecher and others did not proclaim themselves feminists but maintains that these women “prepared the ground for the nineteenth-century women’s movement.” See also J. Cottrell, Feminism and the Bible: An Introduction to Feminism for Christians (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992), chap. 1.

5. C. Gifford, “American Women and the Bible: The Nature of Woman as a Hermeneutical Issue,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, ed. A. Y. Collins (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 14–20; D. W. Dayton, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (New York: Harper, 1976), 89–91; and Bolt, Women’s Movements, 61–78.

6. A. Brown, “Exegesis of I Corinthians XIV, 34, 35 and I Timothy II, 11, 12,” Oberlin Quarterly 4 (1849): 358–73; see Dayton, Discovering, 88–89.

7. As will be seen later in this book, the definition of equality is at the very heart of the controversy surrounding women’s roles. Is “equal” to be understood in terms of equality in worth or does it encompass what God has called women to do in the church and in society?

8. A. Y. Collins, ed., Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, 4.

9. See the summary in Cottrell, Feminism and the Bible, 26–37.

10. Gifford, “American Women,” 27–30.

11. E. C. Stanton, The Woman’s Bible (repr. New York: Arno, 1972 [1895]), 12.

12. Ibid.

13. See Bolt, Women’s Movement, chaps. 5 and 6.

14. See Cottrell, Feminism and the Bible, chap. 2.

15. See M. A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1992), 18–22.

16. See Cottrell, Feminist and the Bible, 43–48, who lists Friedan and Steinem together with Kate Millett and Germaine Greer as the “architects of the movement” (i.e., Second Wave feminism); and Kassian, Feminism Mistake 23–27. Kassian discerns three stages in the development of Second Wave feminism: (1) naming self (1960–1970); (2) naming the world (1970–1980); and (3) naming God (1980–1990).

17. For an interesting treatment see L. A.-L. Abrahams, “A critical comparison of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s notion of Christian ministry as a ‘Discipleship of Equals’ and Mercy Amba Oduyoye’s notion as a ‘Partnership of both men and women’” (minithesis, University of Western Cape, 2005). Cf. M. A. Oduyoye, “African Women’s Hermeneutics,” in Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and Hermeneutics, ed. S. Maimela and A. König; (Pretoria: J L van Schaik, 1998), 359–71; and D. M. Ackermann, “Feminist and Womanist Hermeneutics,” in ibid, 349–58.

18. P. D. H. Cochran, Evangelical Feminism: A History (New York; London: New York University Press, 2005), 77–109.

19. For the most part, “evangelical feminism” will be used in the remainder of the book to describe this movement also known as biblical feminism or egalitarianism.

20. Kassian, Feminist Mistake, 249–50.

21. Such as S. T. Foh, Women and the Word of God: A Response to Biblical Feminism (Phil-lipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979); J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981).

22. E.g., M. J. Evans, Woman in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983); M. Hayter, The New Eve in Christ: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Debate about Women in the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987).

23. Representative works from these two camps are Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. A. Mickelsen (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), as well as now Discovering Biblical Equality, ed. R. W. Pierce and R. M. Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), and Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991). The work by Mickelsen includes essays on biblical authority and feminism; the meaning of kephalēin the New Testament; and exegetical chapters on 1 Corinthians, Gal. 3:28, and 1 Tim. 2:12, plus thoughts on contemporary implications. Piper and Grudem’s work covers much of the same territory from a complementarian perspective yet is even more comprehensive. Discovering Biblical Equality follows the exact same format as the work by Piper and Grudem and provides a chapter-by-chapter egalitarian response. For a survey of biblical feminism see chap. 19 in Kassian, Feminist Mistake.

24. See A. J. Köstenberger and T. R. Schreiner, eds., Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005); A. J. Kösten-berger, “Gender Passages in the NT: Exegetical Fallacies Critiqued,” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 259–83; S. J. Grenz with D. M. Kjesbo, Women in the Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995); and W. J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001).

25. The major features and proponents of Third Wave feminism can be gleaned from L. L. Heywood, ed., The Women’s Movement Today: An Encyclopedia of Third-Wave Feminism, 2 vols. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005). See also J. Baumgardner and A. Richards, Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000); and L. Heywood and J. Drake, eds., Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism (Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).

2WHAT’S AT STAKE:“IT’S HERMENEUTICS!”

Hermeneutics is the unfinished item on our agenda of theological prolegomena. It must be seriously and comprehensively addressed by all evangelical theologians and biblical scholars in the immediate future. Without a hermeneutical consensus, any hope for a consensus in theology and ethics is mere wishful thinking. We evangelicals rightly make a great deal of the normative nature of the biblical text. Our views must be judged in the light of Scripture. But our agreement on this point has real significance only to the extent that we “correctly handle the word of truth.”

—Stanley N. Gundry, “Evangelical Theology: Where Should We Be Going?” (1978)1

During the 1992 United States presidential campaign, Bill Clinton’s advisers kept hammering home one simple truth: “It’s the economy!” They were convinced that the state of the American economy was the number-one issue in that election, and in part owing to their dogged insistence and determination their candidate triumphed. As our study of feminist scholarship on Jesus will demonstrate, something similar is the case in biblical studies: “It’s hermeneutics!” In other words, people’s understanding of individual passages of Scripture largely depends on their overall view of the nature of Scripture and on the interpretive methodology they bring to the table in the first place.

As we will see, in the case of radical feminists, their approach to Scripture is, in a word, rejection, owing to what they perceive to be the Bible’s irredeemably “patriarchal” nature; i.e., it springs from and provides for a disproportionate amount of male power.

The same is true to a lesser extent with reformist feminists, except that they do not reject Scripture in its totality but selectively use or discard what does or does not conform to their feminist presuppositions. In keeping with the Enlightenment spirit, reformist feminists start out with the “enlightened notion” that all men—and women—are equal, and then they critique and supplement Scripture as they see fit, whether by rejecting the authority of Scripture where it does not conform to their feminist outlook or by adding additional writings to their “canon” that reflect more closely their own beliefs.

As for evangelical feminists or egalitarians, Scripture is accepted as inerrant and authoritative, and a hermeneutic aimed at discerning the authorial intention is supported. For egalitarians, Scripture is treated with more respect than it is with radical or reformist feminists. Unlike the latter, who already start out with the presupposition that feminism is right and the Bible wrong where it stands in conflict with feminism, evangelical feminists claim to show inductively that the Bible, rightly interpreted, teaches male-female equality, including women’s eligibility to all church offices and roles of leadership in the church.

There is a wide range of interpretations among feminists with regard to Jesus and women. How do we account for this diversity of views, even among those who all hold to a form of feminism? And how do we know which interpretation is right? Since a proper approach to the study of Scripture is foundational to its interpretation and also essential for the construction of sound theology, it is important to unearth the theological method, including the hermeneutical method, of various schools of interpretation with regard to Jesus’ approach to women. For that reason, before delving into a study of feminist interpretations of Jesus, you might find it helpful to review Appendix 2 to see how Scripture ought to be interpreted.2

Special Issues in the Feminist Debate

In our efforts to understand feminist hermeneutics, it will be helpful to take a quick look at a few hermeneutical issues with particular relevance for the feminist interpretation of Jesus.

Reconstructing History

Reconstructing biblical history is the first such issue, an endeavor that has had a major impact on the discussion of the feminist interpretation of Jesus’ stance toward women. In the prevailing climate of postmodernism in much of American culture, including academia, the question of the nature of history and of historical research naturally arises. How do we really know what happened in history? Since history is forever past, how can one properly investigate it? Since all historical research is conducted by historians with various views and agendas of their own, is not the entire enterprise of historical research hopelessly subjective? Recent scholarship, including the feminist variety, has increasingly questioned whether history “as it actually happened”3can be recovered with any degree of confidence from the available sources.4Postmodern theorists believe that history is written by the winners; those victorious in a given struggle are the ones who recount the story from their point of view. According to them, history is a function of power rather than truth. History is but a fable agreed upon.5

There is, of course, some truth to these claims. As mentioned, sources must still be evaluated, and they will often—some would say always—reflect the bias of a particular historian. At the same time, few would go to the extreme of denying that it is possible to reconstruct history “as it actually happened” to at least some extent. For example, few would question that Jesus Christ lived as a historical person or that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, because a variety of sources, biblical and extrabiblical, attest to his existence and the facts of his life. The same can be said with many other historical persons and events both ancient and modern. As P. W. Felix notes:

It must be granted that twentieth-century exegetes are outsiders to the culture in which the Bible was written, and for this reason can never achieve a complete understanding of the original meaning of the Bible in its historical setting. An undue emphasis upon this limitation, however, loses sight of the fact that all historical study is a weighing of probabilities. The more evidence we have, the higher degree of probability we can attain. The practice of exegesis, therefore, is a continued search for greater probability and a more refined understanding.6

Once doubt is cast on the interpreter’s ability to determine history with a reasonable degree of confidence, we can no longer be sure of the very foundations of our Christian faith, which is of necessity grounded in historical events such as Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor.

15:3–4).

Most feminists, however, still seek to reconstruct the historical circumstances surrounding Jesus’ ministry to determine his approach to women in order to critique or commend it, though different feminists do not necessarily agree on a particular reconstruction. In this quest, of course, evangelical interpreters will trust the testimony preserved in Scripture as their primary historical source.

Epistemology

A foundational issue related to hermeneutics is the question of how we know anything to be true, the study of which is called epistemology. Is knowing truth strictly subjective, varying from person to person as postmodernism claims, or is truth absolute and applicable to all individuals regardless of their cultural context? The postmodernism view is that truth is but the linguistic expression of a socially constructed notion of customs and values characterizing a particular community. Yet noted philosopher J. P. Moreland, among others, has recently raised some serious questions about its validity.7

Moreland’s critique of postmodernism implies that truth is not merely subjective, as if there were the possibility of many different Jesuses roaming first-century Palestine. Nor is truth based merely on the perspective of the interpreter so that the first-century Jesus is hopelessly irrecoverable. The “real Jesus” is attested by eyewitness testimony in our primary sources, the Gospels, and these sources essentially cohere. For this reason we can approach Scripture with confidence, hoping to discover who Jesus really was, as long as we are aware, and properly suspicious, of our own presuppositions.

Table 2.1: Special Issues in the Feminist Debate

Issue

Pertinent Question

The difficulty of reconstructing history

Can we determine “what really happened”?

Epistemology

How do we know?

The role of the reader vs. authorial intent

Where does textual meaning reside?

Issues related to canonicity

What is the extent of the canon?

The alleged patriarchal nature of Scripture

Does Scripture have a “patriarchal bias”?

Evangelicalism vs. fundamentalism

Are evangelicals “fundamentalists”?

The Role of the Reader vs. Authorial Intent

The question must be raised not only about what we are interpreting but also about who is doing the interpreting.8Evangelicals endeavor to operate within the Bible’s own frame of reference, accepting the reality of a transcendent God and of the supernatural. But many who approach the Bible from a postmodern perspective allow their personal situation and experience not only to influence but even to determine the outcome of the interpretation.

This premise is paramount in feminist interpretation of Scripture; it is approached self-consciously by women with predetermined outcomes. Yet, arguably, if we desire to interpret Scripture, we must attempt to allow its authors to have weight in the interpretive outcome. This procedure should be applied in as fair and unbiased a fashion as possible, whether or not we believe that Scripture is the inspired, authoritative, and true Word of God.

It is a realistic danger for any interpreter from whatever point of view to read her own agenda into the Bible rather than to let the Bible speak for itself. She must recognize that she has presuppositions but not allow these to be determinative in her interpretive outcome. Using proper exegetical methods will help interpreters overcome their own lack of knowledge or deficiency and will enable them to come as close as possible to the author’s intended meaning of Scripture and to determine its significance for their own lives.

The quest for the intention of the author is heavily criticized in many circles and is not without its challenges and in some cases proves inconclusive, but it must be maintained that, in principle, determining authorial intent is an academically defensible and legitimate strategy for discerning textual meaning.9An author-oriented approach to interpretation also cor- responds best to reality and common sense, since every text has an author and is willed by that author to express a particular message. Texts do not simply come into being, nor do they, properly understood, mean anything apart from authorial intention.

In recent years, certain approaches to interpretation have completely turned away from authorial intention and put the interpretive emphasis in discerning meaning squarely on the reader. According to some, a text means what it means to a given reader. This renders interpretation very difficult since a given text will mean different things to different readers; there are no criteria for determining what constitutes a valid interpretation.10

What various postmodern hermeneutical approaches have in common and what they share with much of recent feminist approaches is an emphasis on the reader rather than on the author of a given piece of writing.

No longer do interpreters seek to discern authorial intention in attempting to understand the meaning of a given passage. Instead, they deny that a passage has the same meaning for all who interpret it; a passage has only a multiplicity of readings, and these readings, in turn, are a function of the subjectivity and experience of the reader, whether feminist, Hispanic, white Anglo-Saxon male, or African-American. The end result is that the meaning of a given text will be different for different readers, and there are no clear standards by which to evaluate the validity of different readings.

All are equally valid.

Now, there surely is an element of truth in these postmodern approaches.

It is true that the focus on authorial meaning can be misguided if not properly conceived.11Nevertheless, the radical shift from authorial intent to reader-created meaning is too reactionary. In the end, there is no adequate substitute to make up for the loss of the author in determining the meaning of a given text. Moreover, it is important to remember that there is no way to know the author’s intention other than by what is expressed in a given text.

The conclusion must be that authorial meaning is textual meaning, and the meaning of a given text is the meaning intended by its author. The reader’s role is largely passive, seeking as much as possible to discern the various textual clues for the original author’s intended meaning. Only after this approach has been followed is it appropriate for the reader to apply the text to her personal life.

While objectivity in interpretation is clearly impossible in light of a reader’s presuppositions, this does not mean that sound interpretation is doomed to failure. Interpreters who approach the text with an openness to be engaged by its message and by its ultimate author—God himself—will find their understanding of its meaning increasing.

Issues Related to Canonicity

Given the perceived patriarchal bias that both radical and reformist feminism bring to Scripture, whole portions have been excluded by them and its authority is rejected. Other books have been co-opted or materials have been created and put in their place.12

Historically, the Scripture that we are interpreting has come down to us in church history as a canon of biblical books.13The canon of Old Testament books was possibly set as early as the end of the first century A.D.

The New Testament canon took shape in the first few centuries of the early church. Paul’s letters were given recognition before the end of the first century (2 Pet. 3:16). At the Reformation, the church removed several Old Testament apocryphal books from its canon while continuing to affirm the canonicity of all twenty-seven New Testament books that had been included at least since Athanasius’s famous Easter letter of A.D. 367. Therefore, the church through the ages, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, has held that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and they alone, are the inspired and authoritative New Testament books.

Regarding the canon, the church has historically affirmed, first, that the canon is closed; that is, the early church’s determination of canonicity was definitive and binding on the church ever since.

Second, the canon of Scripture is characterized by what has been termed “progressive revelation,” which means that later revelation builds on earlier divine self-disclosure. This is important for interpretation, since it means that earlier material must be interpreted in the light of later revelation.

Third, the canon of Scripture is characterized by both an underlying theological unity and diversity in expression on the part of the different biblical authors.14For example, with regard to unity, all of Scripture is the story of God’s dealings with humankind. This theme runs through Scripture as a common thread and lends unity and coherence to the various biblical books. At the same time, different writers of Scripture may express themselves in diverse ways. A classic example is the way in which Paul and James address the issue of justification by faith. The implication of this for our topic is that evangelicals will expect the biblical teaching on the role of women, such as that of Jesus and Paul, to be coherent and consistent.

Fourth, though there is a diversity of perspectives represented in the biblical books, there is no justification for a “canon within a canon” as many feminists have postulated. Feminists regularly seek to determine a “canon within a canon.” They seek to determine the “central message of Scripture” and to interpret portions of Scripture that seem to be at variance with that central message in light of it.15The problem with this procedure, however, is that only what is considered to be the central message is important while less central passages may be neglected. Also, there is danger in an interpreter arbitrarily selecting a “central theme” of Scripture in keeping with her preference while neglecting teachings that are countercultural or otherwise offensive.

In keeping with the church’s historic affirmation, then, it is affirmed here that the canon is closed and consists of the sixty-six books traditionally included in the Protestant Scriptures, and all of its teachings are relevant and true in the varied presentations and portraits presented by its different authors.

The Alleged Patriarchal Nature of Scripture

Another issue at stake, mentioned earlier, is the question of the perceived patriarchal nature of Scripture. Those who hold to this view believe that Scripture was written and settled in a framework controlled by men, thereby affording men an inordinately large share of authority. The question is whether such male authority is to be taken as God’s will for all people at all times.

It is undeniable that patriarchy as a cultural system of family relations existed in the Old Testament period. So should we consider patriarchy as a cultural institution that expresses God’s will for human relationships? Or is this system culturally determined and thus relative, if not intrinsically evil, because it permanently enshrines male supremacy over women, justifying the removal of portions of the canon of Scripture? How is patriarchy to be defined in the first place? If patriarchy is God’s intention for us, how is this authority to be exercised? What do Jesus’ teachings and practice contribute to this discussion?

All sides can agree that concerted efforts should be made to combat abuse of male authority, which is still found in many homes and cultures today.

In the end, this is not merely an academic issue but one that has enormous practical consequences. This is one of the great strengths of feminism, which has always strongly rejected male domination and the abuse of women. Yet it is necessary to elaborate on the difference between patriarchy and what may be called patricentrism, between harsh male dominance on the one hand and loving, caring leadership on the other.

Is the Bible’s teaching, then, hopelessly patriarchal and thus irrelevant for today’s enlightened, egalitarian culture? How do we rightly interpret Scripture in any case? Is not all biblical interpretation irredeemably subjective? And is not historical research fraught with insurmountable difficulties? Feminism has brought all these issues to the fore. In arguing for an interpretation of Scripture, including an interpretation of Jesus, that is ideologically and experientially driven, feminists have set themselves over Scripture, critiquing it and determining what Scripture may or may not say to modern, or postmodern, men and women.16

What are we to say, then, regarding the charge leveled by radical feminists that Scripture is to be rejected since it enshrines patriarchy, understood as the exercise of a dominant, heavy-handed type of male authority? Without exception, patriarchy is characterized as the source of all evil in feminist literature. This, however, may be shown to reflect feminist bias rather than scriptural deficiency.

In fact, Daniel Block has made a strong case that ancient Israel practiced not the kind of patriarchy depicted by today’s feminists but by what he calls “patricentrism.”17According to Block, like the spokes of a wheel, life in ancient Israel revolved around the father in his role as the provider and protector of the extended family. It was not so much the “rule” of the father (patri-archy) but his loving care and provision for the well being of his own that were most central to the father’s role.

Scripture in its entirety is pervaded by the principle of men bearing the ultimate responsibility and authority for marriage and the family as well as for the church, “the household of God” (1 Tim. 3:15). This principle of male headship reaches from God’s creation of the man first (Gen. 2:7), to his holding the first man accountable for humanity’s sin (Gen. 3:9–12), to the ancient Israelite practice of “patricentrism,” to the all-male Leviti-cal priesthood in Old Testament Israel, to Jesus’ choice of twelve men as his apostles, to Paul’s teaching that men bear ultimate responsibility and authority for the church (1 Tim. 2:12). In fact, Paul himself believed that his teaching of male headship was rooted in the Genesis creation narrative (see 1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

It is true that the historical narrative books of the Hebrew Scriptures witness to numerous abuses of this abiding principle of male headship in the Old Testament period, such as arbitrary divorce (Deut. 24:1–2), the intermittent practice of polygamy, adultery, rape, incest, and so on. Scripture does not condone these behaviors and attitudes.18