The Comp Egal Debate: Honesty is Such a Lonely Word

Welcome, complegalitarians! I notice you are coming over in droves. Enjoy.

As I noted in the first installment in this series, Sarah Sumner stands out among evangelicals insofar as she seeks to forge a consensus among comps and egals and identify a common scriptural and theological ground on which both sides might stand. A bibliography is offered below.

But for consensus to be created, there have to be people who seek it. Since I serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church, an ideologically diverse church if there ever was one, I am familiar with the amount of damage a tiny but vocal minority of either the left or right can do by riding roughshod over the views of others. The use of smear tactics by these minorities is all too common. They are not interested in consensus at all. For the pasdaran of the left and the right, the logic of “if you are not with me, you are against me” rules, and overwhelms the possibility of genuine dialogue.

As a confessionally engaged biblical scholar, I have a bottom line: it should be possible to discuss the meaning of biblical texts with the intention of allowing them to speak to us on their own terms, rather than exaggerating their weight when they “score one for our side,” or engaging in damage control when they do not support the position we hold dear.

In non-evangelical circles, it is easy to find egalitarian scholars – Carolyn Osiek and Bonnie Thurston come to mind – who do not hesitate to point out how the New Testament “household codes,” for example, pour the content of the gospel into patriarchal molds without breaking or wishing to break the molds themselves.

That kind of honesty among some evangelical egalitarian scholars, it seems to me, is rare. The reason, I think, is obvious. The old polemical premise of Bible thumperdom is that Scripture’s purpose is to prove that the views of an opponent are incompatible with biblical teaching. According to that template, the Bible is a bludgeon to hit someone over the head with. If someone hits you over the head with the Bible, well, you hit right back. When you think about, it’s pretty childish, except that, believe me, it’s no pillow fight.

In the case of ideological comps and egals alike, the strange idea that biblical teaching offers support for both points of view is something they cannot get into their heads. Yet that, I submit, is an almost obvious truth.

If it is the truth, it is necessary to seek a synthesis whereby the legitimate emphases of both sides find a place, as in fact they do within the Bible itself.

Wayne Leman, a member of the blogging team of Complegalitarian, a blog dedicated to genuine dialogue between comps and egals, recently noted the following:

[Sarah] Sumner does believe that egalitarians can move more closely to a biblical position, just as she believes complementarians can. She is a welcome prophetic voice in the polarizing debates today. I highly recommend reading what she has written.

Like Wayne, I feel it is imperative to get beyond the “either / or” logic that has long dominated the discussion of this issue among evangelicals.

To be sure, I have an “either / or” I’m not willing to give up: either you are honest and willing to point out passages in the Bible which do not easily support your position, or you are not. If you are not, denial and self-deception rule the roost, and nothing good will come of your efforts, no matter how well-intentioned.

For general resources on the comp egal debate among evangelicals, I refer the reader to the sidebar of Complegalitarian. However, I am unsatisfied with that list. At this stage of the game, it would be especially helpful to point to resources penned by “honest” comps and egals in the sense I am using “honest” here: comps and egals with a demonstrated awareness of the tendency of their side to over-reach in the debate and deform the Scriptural witness in the process.

UPDATE: Thanks, Mass Theology, for the link. You folks have an interesting blog.

Select Sarah Sumner Bibliography

Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003); “Bridging the Ephesians 5 Divide - a fresh look at what this controversial passage says – and doesn’t say,” Christianity Today (November 18, 2005); “Forging a Middle Way between Complementarians and Egalitarians,” in Women, Ministry and the Gospel (ed. Mark Husbands and Timothy Larsen; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007); “The Husband's Headship,” presentation at the National ETS meeting in San Diego, 2007; Jim and Sarah Sumner, Just How Married Do You Want to Be? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, forthcoming 2008)

Select Carolyn Osiek Bibliography

Beyond Anger: On Being a Feminist in the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1986); “The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 53 (1997) 956-968; “Perpetua’s Husband,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10 (2002) 287-290; “Did Early Christians Teach, or Merely Assume, Male Headship?” in Does Christianity Teach Male Headship? (ed. David Blankenhorn, Don Browning, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 23-27; “Who Submits to Whom? Submission and Mutuality in the Family,” in Mutuality Matters: Family, Faith, Just Love (ed. by Herbert Anderson, et al., Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004) 57-64.

Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997); Carolyn Osiek, Margaret Y. MacDonald, and Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).

Select Bonnie Thurston Bibliography

Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (London: Smith & Helwys, 1999); “1 Timothy 5:3-6 and the Leadership of Women in the Early Church,” in A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (ed. Amy-Jill Levine; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003) 159-174; Women in the New Testament: Questions and Commentary (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1994).

Here is a complete list of posts in this series:

• What is the Debate between Complementarians and Egalitarians really about?
• The Comp Egal Debate: Honesty is Such a Lonely Word
• The Comp Egal Debate: What does it mean that “the husband is the head of the wife”?
• The Comp Egal Debate: A Distorted View of Headship
• The Comp Egal Debate: A biblical definition of a wife’s submission to her husband
• The Comp Egal Debate: A “purely” historical take on Ephesians 5:22-33
• Sarah Sumner on the Need for Integrity in the Comp Egal Debate

Comments

[scott gray]

or, if one truly feels that a particular part of christian scripture is no longer 'true' or valuable, or harmful to others, one can jettison it from one's wisdom literature completely...

[JohnFH]

Scott,

a number of people have come to precisely that conclusion. On this view, since the authors of the Bible, not to mention of ancient literature in general, were written by "dead white males" who owned slaves, treated women as property, and tended to think of homosexuality as a fate worse than death, they are beyond the pale.

It's a gift to treat an ancient author with respect rather than as an anvil on which to forge a weapon of use in the battle of ideas. But it is a gift worth desiring with all one's heart.

[scott gray]

exactly my point.

it is one thing to treat an ancient author with respect. a gift worth desiring with all one's heart. and as you say, it is another to use an ancient author's writings as a chainsaw in dealing with another person's ideas. it is also sometimes a wise thing to acknowledge the ancient author's writings as the best explanation that author had at the time for solving a problem, or for explaining how the world worked, or how it ought to work, gleaning the work for what applies benevolently and justly to our times, and setting the parts that are unjust or unbenevolent aside.

scott

[J. K. Gayle]

John,
Carolyn Osiek does archaeological and historical work not in an effort to find a compromised middle ground between today's complementarians and egalitarians, whether evangelicals or otherwise. If you read her work, I think you'll find that she's most interested in the fact that women by and large did run the households in the early days of Christianity, quite despite the ideals of Aristotle and Augustine, whose codes seem to presume a male-ruled household. She also does a lot of work to show how slavery is in the historical and idealogic mix. And she's one scholar who points to the silence in scripture with regard to the woman who is a slave, and the abuses that may have occurred (may have been sanctioned) by the silence. (Silencing, John, is quite an awful thing).

Here's a bit from Osiek:

"7. PRO-FAMILY PROPAGANDA
Followers of the Jesus movement reading their own literature in the last decades of the first century CE must have thought they were receiving a confusing message. On the one hand, the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians and the domestic policies of the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Peter reinforced the family values of domestic order in a hierarchical universe (Col 3:18-4:1; Eph 5:21-6:8; 1 Tm 2:8-15; 5:11-16; 6:1-2; Tt 2:2-10; 1 Pt 2:18-3:7). As reflected in treatises on household management that had been in vogue since Aristotle, the authority of husband, father, and male slave owner is confirmed, though not without differences. . . Throughout all this domestic propaganda, the idealization of the structures does not change, whatever the reality. Marriage remains ideally the hierarchical relationship of benevolent monarch to his loving and submissive wife. The obedience of adult children owed by law to their paternal head is not compromised.

Most important, the structures of slavery remain in place…Certainly followers of Jesus were not in a political or social position to abrogate slavery, but they could have freed their own slaves. There is ample evidence that they did not. Slaves and freedmen/women continue to be incorporated into the family structure as always. They are to continue to serve wholeheartedly, not taking it upon themselves to think more of themselves or less of their masters since both are members of the assembly, but to treat their masters as they would the Lord (Eph 6:5-8; Tt 6:1-2). They are to continue to be answerable with their bodies (1 Pt 2:24)…On the other hand, some take the heroic measure of selling themselves into slavery to ransom others or to secure food for the hungry (1 Clement 55.2)."
[pages 836-37, in "The New Testament Teaching on Family Matters," HTS Theological Studies, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 819-843]

Now, this is not to say that Osiek doesn't speak out about the family in America or in the church today.
She has, for example, given a favorable review of From Culture Wars to Common Ground: Religion and the American Family Debate. She has said:

"A fundamental issue here is well formulated: 'how to retain and honor the intact family without turning it into an object of idolatry and without retaining the inequalities of power, status, and privilege ensconced in its earlier forms.' There is certainly more that has been said on this topic in the book, more to be said, and more will be said..., I am sure.
As to 'equal regard,' I find this a sparkling ideal. Go for it!"

[JohnFH]

Kurk,

thanks for your comments here. I chose to showcase Carolyn Osiek's scholarship for the excellent reasons you give - that she is doing groundbreaking work, and is as committed to her viewpoint as the next person - but for another reason as well, one that separates her approach from yours.

She does not set up ancient authors like Aristotle, Paul, and Augustine as fall guys - it seems to me that you have this tendency. Sorry to be so blunt, but I hope you will take it as a complement if I think I can be so blunt and get away with it with you, trusting in your ability to accept what I say as an honest opinion.

In the case of Paul and Augustine (I'm not aware of what she has written about Aristotle in particular), Carolyn Osiek sees them both as inhabiting that "compromised middle ground" you abhor. This is not a minor detail.

I am not asking you to inhabit that same ground if your conscience precludes you from doing so.

But I do have a simple question: do you see what I see? Do you see what many feminist scholars also see, that someone like Paul inhabited that "compromised middle ground"?

[JohnFH]

Scott,

did you know that someone beat you to the punch with respect to your fine formulation of the hermeneutical situation? Augustine spoke in favor of a hermeneutic of love when exegeting the Bible.

In so doing, he did not solve a single individual issue of interpretation, nor did he guarantee that he would get things right in consequence. The opposite is true. But he recognized the need for exegesis to be, in modern terms, "canonical" in nature. So did almost everyone once upon a time, though they differed about what the canon consisted of, and how to apply it.

For many people today, the canon is extra-textual and anti-traditional. It is, for instance, the history of gender liberation as they understand it. The truth, indeed, the only truth they live by, is whatever vale of tears they identify with.

I have nothing against anti-traditionalism per se. The fact is, tradition itself contains within it an anti-traditional dynamic. But the problem, I think, is another. As far as I can see, and I could be wrong, it is impossible to argue with suffering. That's why I hate theodicy. At most, one can seek to put the suffering in a larger perspective, to bring the sufferer back to truths he or she already knows, but which have been eclipsed by the suffering, and help the sufferer exit from self-destructive self-absorption. This is what I see God doing in the book of Job as the author presents it.

[J. K. Gayle]

John,
You may be surprised to know that Dr. Osiek is on my dissertation committee. She gives very tough input to me, for which I am most grateful. I'm also very very thankful she also listens when she challenges.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that there can be middle ground. It was Aristotle who allowed none generally! I am aware of that. My dissertation actually works to take to task feminists such as Carol Poster who call for Aristotle's absolute exclusion from feminist rhetorics. This is the elitist move: exclusion of some natural born group.

And to me translation (which Aristotle also denigrates unless it's overseen by Greeks into Greek) is a way of bringing inclusion. Feminisms, good feminisms at least, in epistemology and in historiography, also work toward inclusion. Likewise, rhetoric, or at least good rhetoric--such as the kind you insist on in bible translation is inclusive.

From you, John, I do appreciate the challenge, the question to my approach. But Suzanne McCarthy is right, as is Carolyn Osiek, to see discussions of exclusions (i.e., sexism) as not an area for compromise. That Osiek is a woman doing scholarship in a traditionally male discipline (i.e., in theology, history, and archeology) is no small thing. When she asks for dialog, she's not imagining a muting of women in any way.

You probably remember Osiek a while back, in Beyond Anger, described something in first person: “how I as feminist, biblical scholar, and believer was struggling with the conflict produced by that combination.” Can we men admit that we do not face that struggle, do not have to face it?

She went on:

“Feminism today bears the burden of multivalent descriptions and definitions. There is no one right answer to the question, What is it? This is true for several reasons. One is that it is a movement which encompasses not just one aspect of modern life (economics, social class, religion, etc.) but the whole of it, not just the private or public sector, but both, not just personal or communal identity, but both. Unlike classism or racism, sexism is embedded at the core of human relationship, and is therefore inescapable… Another reason for the ambiguity surrounding feminism is that women are not an isolable group in society, but permeate all of it.”

For Osiek to speak in these terms about herself, her scholarship, her beliefs, her struggles, suggests that she is not looking to join Paul or Augustine if either were to set up class or race or gender as constructs of nature (the way Aristotle does) so that say slaves or blacks or women are relegated to lesser roles.

(Where she and I seem most to disagree is in our views about Jesus and his methods as opposed to Aristotle’s. I do see Jesus as a feminist, as an egalitarian—I am most amazed by the parables, by his hyperbole, by his humble dependence on others not as educated or as socially elite to translate his words; by his refusal to view or to enact with nature as state. As a postmodernist, I can get away with such a game.)

But Dr. Osiek does find Paul and Augustine pulling families (the household codes) away from Aristotle’s natural constructs for them. But I see this more like William Webb’s project than as an effort to bridge to compromise on classism, racism, sexism under the guise of things like “separate but equal” or “complementarianism.”

[J. K. Gayle]

She does not set up ancient authors like Aristotle, Paul, and Augustine as fall guys - it seems to me that you have this tendency.

John, Just to be clear (not defensive), I'm not setting Aristotle up. His own writing promoting slavery and misogyny speaks for itself. And then scholars such as Prudence Allen and F. A. Wright work through Aristotle's influence.

Wright concludes:

"In Aristotle's time, for reasons which this brief survey of Greek literature has, perhaps, made plain, the facts of women's nature were certainly not sufficiently comprehended. Euripides and Plato are almost the only [male] authors who show any true appreciation of a woman's real qualities, and to Euripides and Plato, Aristotle, by the whole trend of his prejudices, was opposed. His mistake was that he failed to realise the moral aspects of feminism. A nation that degrades its women will inevitably suffer degradation itself. Aristotle lent the weight of his name to a profound error, and helped to perpetuate the malady which had already been the chief cause of the destruction of Greece."

[scott gray]

john—

can you suggest an ‘augustine primer’ regarding this love hermeneutic? are there good essays all gathered in one tome? i’d love to read more, i just don’t know where to start.

i’m missing the ‘respect the ancients point’ if it was directed at me; unless you feel dismissing text that is unjust or non-benevolent is disrespectful. i have great respect for paul, and it has to do with his self righteousness. (even though i think some of his text unjust.)

i think self righteousness gets a bad rap, for a number of good reasons. but it begins in the ‘right’ place, and is of great value in many situations. self righteousness is about self-righting. i think of a ship in water. self righteousness is the set of mechanisms and experiences that keep the ship from tipping too far over, but not so rigidly that it can’t bob and weave as conditions require—gyroscopes, speed governors, keel design, and the like. our mechanisms include moral and ethical frameworks, problem-solving strategies, and the like. they keep us from tipping too far over and capsizing, but not so rigidly that we can’t bob and weave as conditions require.

self righteousness becomes problematic in three instances that i can think of. first is when the ‘righting’ response is too extreme for the bob and weave encountered. second is when the ‘righting’ response is disingenuous—for instance when the moral proclaimer is deliberately lying about the value or applicability of a particular mechanism. third is when ‘righting’ responses are used when one is safely in port. i think we have oodles of jesus stories that caution us about all three of these problematic applications of self righteousness.

self righteousness is at its most glorious and useful when one is ‘at sea;’ when one choses, or when one is forced in, tumultuous conditions that require using every self righteous tool on the ship. then self righteousness is about survival.

i think paul chose a life ‘at sea;’ and in tumultuous seas all the time. i think he learned, and tweaked, and developed a variety of mechanisms for self righting in rough seas. his writings are full of them. he has my greatest respect for this, and especially for mechanisms that maintained the dignity of those around him, or that raised the bar for them (i think of his ‘faith, hope, love text).

but i think he was also guilty of the problematic instances i mentioned above—of too extreme a response to the bob and weave encountered when he wasn’t at sea; a disingenuous response when it was an easy solution, or when he didn’t hold the other players in the room as capable players; and using righting responses when safely at port.

i admire him greatly for his fascinating writings regarding his self righteousness when he was at sea; i also see that he responded problematically as well.
but self righteousness is about not being so rigid that the bob and weave encountered makes us unstable to the point of tipping the boat over. if we read his writings as rigid doctrine, we are in danger of tipping over as well.

it may be that his writings about women are applicable when the faith community is in stormy seas. (maybe.) but most of us aren’t in communities at sea. most of us are members of communities in relatively safe harbor. so we don’t need to over correct. and we don’t need to remain rigid. we can be discerning about which texts apply, and which don’t.

i respect paul, very much. i could never do what he has done. but it doesn’t make all of his writings applicable to all situations all of the time. sometimes, parts of the text that are unjust, or non-benevolent, need to be set aside.

[JohnFH]

This is a fun conversation.

Kurk,

I didn't know that Carolyn Osiek was on your committee. You are very fortunate.

I am glad you accept the fact that Paul occupied the "compromised middle ground" which I asked you about. At least, I think you acknowledge that.

The feminist scholars I have read and respect the most - Osiek and Thurston are only examples - stress this key point in a variety of ways.

(Whether and in what sense we are to occupy a "middle ground" today is a separate issue. More on that in a second.)

If Paul did "compromise," the next question, then, is whether Paul should have "compromised" as he did. In practice Paul put limits on the extent to which and the bounds within which the inclusion of women took place, though he saw the inclusion in and of itself as happening by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is true that the gospel for Paul changes the way one lives within the structures Aristotle though it important to uphold with the full armament of his philosophy. But in practice, for Paul the gospel does not abolish those structures.

Otherwise put, the question is: is Paul to be taken to task for the modesty of his ethics, for his willingness to accommodate the culture of his day?

By the way, I am using "Paul" here to cover both the Pauline and deutero-Pauline literature, without wanting to prejudge that issue in any way.

Now, there are plenty of people who take a look at Paul's attempts at reconciling the Gospel with practical realities and say, Paul blew it. I'm not sure, however, that this route is open to people who hold to a robust version of the Christian faith. Don't get me wrong. It's not as if most Christians feel bound by Paul's counsel that women should be veiled. But Christian tradition has always understood the method Paul used in his ethics to be normative for all times. That's why so much effort is made to isolate that method.

Perhaps you are aware that Osiek, at least in the past, has tended to another solution altogether. I quote from an essay available online:

In first-century Roman society, a new movement was at work toward greater social freedom for women. Hellenistic Judaism and Christianity happened along at the right time to pick up on these trends which were already in the social air, and thus were not directly inspired by Jesus or Christian thought. I have more sympathy with this position. [end quote]

That's in her "From Culture Wars to Common Ground: A Response" on the Vanderbilt University website.

I think she could be right. In that case, the center of the Gospel is not Galatians 3:28, but, for example, justification by faith through grace alone - which eased the acceptance of greater freedom for women among early Christians, but did not determine it.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Once again, the question of compromise. My sense is that someone like Carolyn Osiek does not consider Paul's method to be more than one influence among many on the method she makes use of in ethical construction. She is a Catholic after all, which means she has a larger toolbox at her disposal. Evangelicals might learn from Catholics so as to draw from a wider heritage without denying the primacy of Scripture.

Still, last time I checked, Carolyn Osiek remains a loyal Catholic. She has not gone elsewhere because her church sanctions the exclusion of women from a number of roles within the life of the church.

This, too, is a compromise of sorts. It is all the more honorable insofar as her disaccord with the policies of her church cause her (I assume) considerable pain, and yet she does not walk out, or rail against those responsible in the church for its current conservative line.

Kurk, we've only just begun, haven't we? So long as you keep reading people as thoughtful as Sarah Sumner on the one hand - a good challenge for a take-no-prisoners egalitarian like you, and Carolyn Osiek on the other hand - a far greater challenge, I think, to your identification of the Gospel with Galatians 3:28, you are likely to become a teacher of many in the future God has for you.

[JohnFH]

Scott,

I will have to get back to you on your Augustine question. My library is in disarray at the moment, but I will get back to you.

You have a fine ability to empathize with a character like Paul. I've been preaching through Romans in church and like to point out that in person Paul was probably a pain in the you know where. Subject to emotional outbursts. Lots of rough edges. Yet this hard-bitten guy wrote 1 Corinthians 13. It's extraordinary if you ask me.

[J. K. Gayle]

This is a fun conversation.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm thinking now about Puff the Magic Dragon. And how Paul said Don't smoke tobacco that's been offered to Greek idols, unless it doesn't offend a weaker brother. And by that he may have meant a weaker sister too. Or does it matter? :)

[scott gray]

speaking of smoke, have we made the 'i respect paul' issue clear? paul's not the issue; as you said before, he's beyond the (smokey?) pale...

it is still immoral to descriminate against women in this fashion.

and it is even more immoral to use 'sacred scripture' to justify it.

peace--

scott

[Iyov]

On this view, since the authors of the Bible, not to mention of ancient literature in general, were written by "dead white males" who owned slaves, treated women as property, and tended to think of homosexuality as a fate worse than death, they are beyond the pale.

John a snarky comment unworthy of you, and one that is quite untrue.

Slave owners: We have a rich ancient tradition of slaves writing great literature, beginning with Aesop.

White: In the Mediterranean culture, there were a substantial number of African authors; and numerous figures from Greek mythology, such as Athena (who Plato identifies with the Libyan goddess Neith; see also Herodotus discussing the Libyan influences on Greek origins.) Similarly substantial evidence exists that figures such as Cleopatra was black. The notion that Augustine of Hippo was not at least partially of black origin boggles the mind.

treated women as property: OK, let's talk Cleopatra and Mark Anthony again. Who owned who? Or let's even take Xanthippe and Socrates as an example. Or, let's simply recall the stories from Suetonious about the wives and mistresses of the Caesars. To assume that women were just treated as chattel does not match with the power that women had -- power in one case to cause a war that launched a thousand ships.

Homosexuality: OK, this makes me think you've totally separated from historical fact. John, have you ever actually bothered to read the writings of Classical Athens? Have you read Plato? Homosexuality in one form or another was common in Greek culture (and in Roman culture as well). In the Israelite culture, it is treated as a sin, but the famous reference to "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22 uses the same word as the prohibition against eating shellfish and game birds in Leviticus 11 -- funny how you mention homosexual acts as being "a fate worse than death, beyond the pale" and you don't talk about eating bouillabaisse even once.

The truth is that you're locked into a Victorian/Edwardian view of ancient culture -- one that has long since been universally repudiated. The Edwardians (who were dominated by white males who by and large treated women like chattel and treated homosexuality as a vile sin) remade the classical world to fit their prejudices. It seems you are still living in that era.

Indeed, modern multi-cultural writers have embraced the classical Greek period because it had a far more open attitude -- one that we did not see matched until the post World War II overhaul of the academy.

[JohnFH]

Kurk,

Metaphors are dangerous, aren't they? One mention of smoke and a pipe and look what happens.

Scott,

just to keep the conversation going, are you saying that it is immoral for Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. - except for a fringe group here and there (happily, I belong to one of those fringe groups) to sanction the exclusion of women from many roles of religious leadership?

That strikes me as too strong a claim, though one might begin to make such a claim from within a religious tradition. Outside of one, how do you know right and wrong on these matters in the first place?

Your claim is, I think, difficult to sustain, a category mistake of sorts. To be sure, I know most people think the "religion is profoundly immoral - look how it treats women and gays" claim is completely self-evident.

The anthropologist in me suggests that your claim misunderstands how religion works and is demonstrably false. Furthermore, it misunderstands how culture works in a complex feedback. I posted on this in a weird sort of way in my Tel Qarqur series.

Quite an interesting topic, if you ask me. We live in a day and age in which "many" people think the prohibition against eating shellfish is somehow immoral, not to mention the limitation of the priesthood to a males of a particular genetic line. But actually, many (this time without quotes) people the world over live religiously by just these kinds of rules every day. Interesting, I would say.

Indeed, all people function, as any alert observer of humanity knows, according to various kinds of analogous rules, which, though often implicit only, are if anything more determinative for that reason.

[Iyov]

By the way, it is taking a full effort of consciousness to restrain from discussing at length Theodora in Procopius's Secret History. But I know you want to keep this as a family-friendly blog.

So I'll just mention Aristophanes's Lysistrata instead.

[JohnFH]

You are funny, Iyov. By the way, I wrote my comment with "shellfish" in it before I saw yours with a similar reference.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Of course the "dead white male" business deeply misunderstands ancient realities, but you know what? Your line of argument doesn't help.

The average Israelite household in the Iron Age had slaves and if they were non-Israelite, they were not especially well-treated. If the Samaria ostraca are any guide, the slaves were often Canaanite, that is, the children of the defeated: just something to keep in mind.

Greco-Roman culture was built upon the backs of a slave-class, and it wasn't just Aristotle who thought that was fine and dandy. Aesop is just the exception that proves the rule. What good does it do to point out that Aesop was a slave? Is that really very different than saying it couldn't have been that bad for blacks in the colonial period, look at Phillis Wheatley?

With respect to women, outright misogyny was prevalent in ancient times, not just far less than equal protection under the law.

As for homosexuality, sure it had an accepted role in segments of Greco-Roman culture, but you know as well as I do that the average Greek or Roman would have found the idea of gay marriage absolutely abhorrent. Talk about a category mistake.

The fact is, Iyov, you go back to Jerusalem, Athens, or Rome - three very different places - and it's Dorothy, we're not in Kansas any more. Not Los Angeles either. But I'm not willing to concede that our culture represents progress. Of course it does in many ways, but in others, the opposite is the case. It's the tradeoffs that need to be looked at.

Most people pretend there aren't any, but that doesn't make it so. Most people think you can change one "small" detail, and everything else will continue as before. As if culture was not a symbiotic system. The sages knew (and know) better. The Pope knows better. Even in a reformed Christian context, where openness to change is a marching slogan, there is at least an unconscious awareness of the dangers of change, even change that is justifiable in and of itself.

As for your obvious conviction that the post WW II academy is paradise on earth, I'm glad you're happy with your social location. Most people are. But you won't be too surprised if it is not only Sayyid Qutb who harbors a few stray doubts.

[Iyov]

I didn't realize it was choice between regarding homosexuality as a fate worse than death and accepting gay marriage. No shades of nuance there. It is too bad that I am forbidden from encouraging you to convert to Judaism -- you missed your calling in dictating halacha.

But the most offensive part of your message is regarding "ancient culture" (or modern culture) speaking in a single voice. Things were considerably more varied and weird. And that's just among the Presocratics.

But since you accuse me of snobbery in choosing the great figures of ancient literature (rather than the average Dimitrios on the street), I refer you to your quote:

the authors of the Bible, not to mention of ancient literature in general

[JohnFH]

You say:

I didn't realize it was a choice between regarding homosexuality as a fate worse than death and accepting gay marriage.

That was precisely my point. It's the common wisdom today to think in terms of that either/or, but not in antiquity.

I don't know where you got the impression that I think ancient culture is any less weird and complex than you rightly note that it was. On the contrary, I was suggesting it was "other" with respect to our culture to a far greater degree than is sometimes realized.

We can't settle the old argument between Moses Finley and de Ste Croix in this comment thread, but I will say that I lean in the direction of Finley and wonder about the validity of thinking of ancient slavery as an economic class as opposed to a kind of social status. To the extent that that is true, modern slavery and ancient slavery are two different animals. My guess is that we agree on that, Just wanted to sign off on a note of agreement.

[scott gray]

john—

woohoo! this comment will be as long as a methodist sermon…

you asked me if it is immoral for buddhists, muslims, jews, and christians to sanction the exclusion of women from many roles of religious leadership, and i say a resounding yes! i’ll see your traditional canonic rigidity, and raise you an anti-traditional prophetic howl!! i’ll see you a traditional pharisee moral framework, and raise you an anti-traditional jesus twisty question!! i’ll see you a traditional augustinian maxim, and raise you a…a…an anti-traditional scott gray metaphor!! i’ll see you a traditional old dead white guys elitism, and raise you an anti-traditional suzanne-cry of anguish!! yes!! it is immoral!! and in order to become moral, traditions will have to adaptively change. the sacredness of scripture is one of them.

you talk about beginning to make such a claim from within a religious tradition. let me tell you a story.

in the early 70’s, the episcopal church in the u.s. went through the transition of ordaining women into the priesthood. it was not a smooth change. you know about the philadelphia 11? one of them came from the diocese of central new york, and the bishop at the time was ned cole. he anguished over his beliefs, and his actions, and his respect and affection for his friend among the philadelphia 11. after the 1976 general council, he began ordaining women in his diocese.

i was an active member in a parish of the diocese of central new york from 1968 through these transitions. i was in high school and college (graduated college in 1976). i heard ned cole speak about his wrestle regarding what his beliefs were, what he felt was moral and ethical, what he thought was best for the church, and his great affection for the woman he had mentored in seminary (at bexley). i watched the lines drawn in the sand by a few parishioners (catholics who had come over in the wake of vatican ii, and who subsequently returned to the catholic tradition after epicopal bishops began ordaining women), and the pain this caused. i watch my mother, and the empowerment in her own personal life to take on tough career choices because of the path undertaken by these women. i watch ned cole ordain women after the 1976 council, one of the very first of whom is my second cousin.
so if ‘within a religious tradition’ includes active parish membership, discussions at coffee hour, listening to bishops speak, missing my high school friends who went back to st. raphael’s, watching my second cousin’s ordination, and seeing my mother’s strength and courage build from the example she saw, then yes, i’m making this claim from within a religious tradition.

now since you mentioned muslim traditions, i would offer this post as food for thought by larry hamlin about the abdel-qadar women killed by their family: http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2008/06/imprimatur-of-truth.html. bottom line: gender-driven choices about worth, and participation, and treatment, and leadership of women are immoral, whether it is discounting women as pastors, or killing women for family honor.

last night, as i was providing logistical support for a meeting of tridentine restoration people (another room filled with smoke), i came across an interesting article from my ‘someday i’ll get to these articles’ pile. it’s called ‘adaptive change: what’s essential and what’s expendable,’ which is an interview between claus scharmer and ronald heifetz (http://www.dialogonleadership.org/interviewheifetz.html). in it, heifetz tells a story about a fifteen year old girl in 1965 who is burning with passion over civil rights issues, and can’t understand why her father has no interest, and in fact won’t even engage meaningfully in dialog with her about it. so the two of them are at great odds for a dozen years over social justice issues. the question comes up, why doesn’t mary’s dad turn around overnight? why can’t he see how impotant this is to her, and what it means, and that the ‘good old days’ were unjust? well, it has to do with adaptive change. in order to see things her way, to change his beliefs, he has to lose some of the beliefs that his grandfather taught him. and the loss is just too great for him. he’s not ready to give that up, and she can’t seem to say the right things to get him to see that the new beliefs, more moral than his old (racist) beliefs, are worth what he’ll lose. so heifetz tells it this way:

“what mary is really challenging her dad to do, then, what she’s really asking her dad is not simply, “what do we stand for in our country?” she’s really saying to her dad, “some of the lessons your grandfather taught you were evil, some of the lessons your grandfather taught you were wrong. you have to sift through the love and the lessons that you got from your grandfather, you have to experience disloyalty of the most profound and personal sort, disloyalty to somebody who loved you beautifully. you have to sift through these disloyalties to capture for yourself what was most essential and enduring in his wisdom and in his love. and then you have to cast away that which is wrong, parochial, and narrow.”

john, i’m not your 15-year old daughter. but i hold you in great respect and a good bit of affection. you and i have a small bit of history together. (i remember entering the blogosphere about a year ago by asking you questions about an isaiah passage.) plus, we're building a habitat for humanity house together. you brought out the need for respecting the ancient authors, and seeing that respect as a gift, and i think i’ve shown you that i have that kind of appreciation for st paul. and i understand what a loss it would be for you to cut away the parts of scripture which are immoral and unethical, and the sorrow such an adaptive change would cost you. but i would say it this way to you:

“john, some of the lessons grampa paul taught you were evil, some of the lessons grampa paul taught you were wrong. you have to sift through the love and the lessons that you got from grampa paul, you have to experience disloyalty of the most profound and personal sort, disloyalty to somebody who loves you beautifully. you have to sift through these disloyalties to capture for yourself what is most essential and enduring in his wisdom and in his love. and then you have to cast away what is wrong, parochial, and narrow.

with great respect for you, much affection for you, a shared appreciation for our grampa paul, and with heartfelt empathy for the anguish and loss that cutting away parts of scripture would cost you,

peace—

scott

[JohnFH]

That was fun, Scott. You will not be surprised if I say I'm not ready to throw Grandpa Paul under the proverbial bus quite yet, or call the lessons he gave "evil."

But I do want to understand what part of Paul's counsel remains profitable for Christians today, and what part, like the veiling of women for example, does not.

But guess what? I think it is simplistic to decide the question based on whatever the culture I live in treats as self-evident truth. It is within a tradition's own resources that a call to change has to be made. It is heartening to see that you understand that.

In the meantime, as we live with questions as well as answers, we can worship and build HH houses together.

[scott gray]

it was fun, wasn't it?

peace--

scott

[twjxpeose]

theyd route for it tasks. in pay in. http://www.prevent.org/php3.html>ゴローズ 通販 are their the be their by the available http://www.nationalpublicadjustors.com/asp1.html>ルブタン 靴 right the properly be However, from Because the http://www.rljlodgingtrust.com/php4.html>oakley returns data publishing keep always Run you within http://www.thenextchapterprogram.com/php1.html>オークリー サングラス Then used youre This tin Internet, Take plus

[#nbhiortn[changeszg]]

qMaevcCaem insanity workout sOjsyuHddb insanity workout for sale jAelgcWvpj insanity shaun t
zRhtkrOtvf insanity workout uDxeeyLejh insanity workout dvd gWyoacDcwx insanity workout in stores

[VewAppefs]

sjumj ghd hair straightener wmsky ghd straightener njnoj ghd flat iron nbehc http://hairsalon.huacsfba.org/ nuiib nike requin xozkv nike tn requin dwgkj tn nike requin uoxzi http://intba.org/ furxk isabel marant xpnqc isabel marant basket qkich chaussure isabelle marant cpxnk http://isabelmarantsoldespascher.com/sneakers-isabel-marant.html hwwdc oakley sunglasses cheap ztyvc oakleys sunglasses cpihu oakley sunglass lfmfo http://oakleysunglassessale-cheap.info/oakley-jawbone-sunglasses-c-14.html pqbup isabel marant sneakers zdvfz isabel marant boots ayyvg isabel marant dicker boot ouzre http://ohiosga.org/

[#nbhiortn[changeszg]]

kBiklzYute insanity workout bAxxooWdyk insanity workout dvd xZiomlXfkb insanity workout in stores
aAdobzZwep insanity workout wDdtvkHygv insanity workout dvd eKdxupGarr insanity workout online

[VewAppefs]

drmjv sneakers isabel marant jglzs isabelle marant basket uqnnx chaussures isabel marant magyl http://isabelmaranttsneakers.webnode.fr/ jfazf fitflops fgnhq fitflop sale makgi http://fitflopsflipshoes.snappages.com/ qupsa fitflop vnnpl fitflop singapore ikrpj fitflop sale singapore gwkyt http://fitflopsgsaleap.snappages.com/ xdwug burberry sac ubprz burberry solde jijes sac burberry soldes xrsbi http://burberrypascherfr-france.monwebeden.fr/ kjqrd fitflop jdpoo fitflop malaysia outlet uvexc http://fitflopmysalesa.snappages.com/ csden burberry homme qzasv bottes burberry ciaqz t shirt burberry fmucz http://frsacburberryfr.monwebeden.fr/

[#nbhiortn[changeszg]]

gGxqatPhnc insanity workout bTieqyHigk insanity workout dvd hRsitpZidg where to buy insanity
hVtuztWpxs insanity workout iByfhpLuqi insanity workout dvd nSkqvyMepu insanity workout review

[VewAppefs]

agvgl insanity workout fikkn insanity workout for sale lroqq where to buy p90x kxddu http://insanityworkout.fetsick.org/ xofiv fitflops ymaoi fitflop bzejx fitflop shoes dvsdb http://fitflops.huacsfba.org/ qlewf nike high tops fgtak nike dunks high aoyfl nike vandal high axbhk http://nikehighheel.ohiosga.org/ uznce insanity workout etoap insanity workout for sale zmcmp insanity workout ztspd http://insanityworkout.huacsfba.org/ ncxmb sac longchamp pas cher mwexi longchamps pas cher szgky sac longchamp pas cher neuf sqobg http://saclongchamp.intba.org/ yacmk toms shoes sale hlsrr toms shoes on sale ffjru toms canvas shoes xdhqf http://tomshoes.ohiosga.org/

[VewAppefs]

tthak sac burberry hwxdd sac burberry pas cher jmzaq sacoche burberry hicti http://sacburberryfr4.webnode.fr/ sotiy http://fitflopshoesmy.moonfruit.com/ olvpl fitflop ggfen fitflops iyykm flip flop sandals jyndc http://cheapsgfitflop.snappages.com/ vmetx sneakers isabel marant fkjep isabel marant chaussures ucuhu sneakers isabelle marant ltnhh http://isabelfrenchsoldes.webnode.fr/ getof fitflops rlcfn fitflops sale palhk http://fitflopsflipshoes.snappages.com/ rpair http://insanityworkout-sale.webspawner.com/

[#nbhiortn[changeszg]]

cXzmnwMnkq insanity workout aYbcabArbm insanity workout sale uSyeiuQwfp where to buy insanity
yOlaffJgip insanity workout hWtrmpAjlx insanity workout australia uCqgdyYvmz insanity workout review

[#nbhiortn[changeszg]]

iFuuulLxlc insanity workout uVfqkxHgts insanity workout for sale vOkobhKvak where to buy insanity
dVdbepVpsn insanity workout wLkqmpCvxo insanity workout dvd qOqkqpPkos insanity workout online

[#nbhiortn[nimauhbc]]

vRlwguHewc basket isabelle marant
yCnshiFmhv isabelle marant basket
lGpvdjHjfj fitflops
pHmkduHdty marc by marc jacobs outlet

[kaesqvpnd]

and ? Because ? but ? That ? your