Proverbs 31 and the Noble Spouse

Recently on social media I read a thought provoking post that dealt with both the problems and enduring value of the “Noble Wife” passage in Proverbs 31. I think a simpler way to get at what they were saying is this: Proverbs 31 is an enduring list of virtues and values written in a culture that was cursed with patriarchy (if you read the consequences of sin for our first parents in Genesis 3) and tended toward misogyny (if you read many instances of the use and abuse of women in the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles). Now we realize that in Christ there is “no male or female, no slave or free” (cf. Galatians 3). So the virtues are still valid, even if the patriarchal structure they were expressed in is obsolete and oppressive. 

Therefore, let’s extract the virtues and jettison the potential misogyny of the passage by simply universalizing for all people. It may have been first directed at women, but now it is directed at EVERYONE. An interpretation of this passage “in Christ” describes a hard working and virtuous spouse. Period. Regardless of whether that spouse is a man or woman. As such, in this text we find that we are ALL called to diligence, hard work, wisdom, discernment, and responsibility as spouses and partners. 

We might even imagine that we are translating Proverbs 31 into a language that does not conceive of gender the same way English and Hebrew have in the past. After all, English seems to be losing gendered grammar and vocabulary quite quickly, just as many other gendered languages have before us. So, imagine translating Proverbs 31 into a language that only has the word “spouse” or “companion”, and not “husband” and “wife”. A language into which “he” and “she” doesn’t really work. If we do this, we might read Proverbs 31 like this:

Mary Magdalene versus the Patriarchy

So the controversy over who Mary Magdalene was has jumped out of the pulpit and lecture hall, and into the Washington Post. For some on the "Right", Mary is a lowly prostitute who Jesus cast demons out of and saved to be one of the "little women" in the Gospel story. For others on the "Left", Mary is one of the leading Apostles, the patron saint of feminine empowerment, who was unjustly and unfortunately silenced by the growing patriarchy of the early Church. Both sides of the debate paint this as an either-or. Either Mary is a barely redeemable ex-whore, or she is an unjustly maligned Apostle. But perhaps the battle lines have been drawn based upon the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Subverting Submission: A Rhetorical Analysis of Ephesians 5

Most of the scholarship surrounding Ephesians 5 revolves around the "revisionist versus traditionalist" axis. One side, hating the idea of unqualified female submission to a Jewish form of male chauvinism, reject the passage as spurious or semi-spurious. They develop possible literary hypothesis upon possible literary hypothesis, without hard evidence, to prove that Paul did not, in fact write it. And then, based on their leaning tower of hypotheses, they reject it as non-apostolic, therefore non-canonical, and therefore non-binding on Christians.

The other side, convinced of the much more probable hypothesis that Paul indeed did write it- or if he did not, one of his close disciples did- rightfully side with the catholic Church and accept it as canonical. They believe that God is, in fact, speaking through it to the Church today, and we need to listen to it as a foundational document for the Church. But, they read it in such a way that it supports something close to a ancient Jewish "second class status" for women.

One side wrongly approaches Biblical authenticity, but rightly discerns the Gospel message of liberation. The other side rightly approaches Biblical authenticity, but wrongly discerns the message. What shall we do?

Needle Pricks, Crocodile Tears, and Divine Providence

I think I learned something about God this morning.  At 9am it was time to take my daughter to the doctor for her 15 month checkup.  My wife is a teacher with a very structured daily schedule, and since I am a youth minister with a completely variable schedule, I usually get to take our daughter to the doctor.  I do not like going to the doctor.  I hate getting my blood drawn, and I hate shots. But I have found out that there is one thing I dislike more than getting a needle stuck into me.  It is getting a needle stuck into my daughter.

An Affirmation of Women's Ordination

In a number of Anglican Churches (especially in the U.S., Canada, England, and Africa) you will find female priests. Ordination of women was one of the most hotly debated issues in the Anglican Church from the 1960's to the 1980's. It is still hotly contested by many Anglicans. For instance, the diocese next to mine does not ordain women to the priesthood, nor do they permit women priests to minister in their diocese. Much ink, and not a few unkind words, have been spilled over this issue in the last four decades.

I will try to explain the basic reasons for, and against, women's ordination. Before I attempt this, I want to make three admissions: First, I believe in women's ordination and my writing will reflect this. I will try to be fair, but I am not objective. Second, I will probably over-simplify things. This is a vast subject with many books written on it. Third, I have friends who are against women's ordination, and I once was against it myself. I respect the position of anyone who honestly opposes women's ordination for the sake of Christ (though I disagree with them). If you are in a Church that opposes women as priests, please ask your pastor for his view on the matter. With that said, let us talk about the four most common objections to women's ordination: