Title and blurb below: Cruciform Equality: The Biblical Trajectory Toward Equality and Jubilee for Women It’s published at Amazon. Can’t link here (probably part of the rules of the site). Navigating the rich and variegated texts of the Bible that relate to women, Jeff Young proposes a significant revaluation of the apparently straightforward traditional, complementarian, or patriarchal prescriptions that serve as the backdrop to decades of discussion and debate related to the status, roles, and equality of women. Initially, he considers how we might evaluate the controversial subjects; the concerns of some feminist theologians with respect to the crucifixion of Jesus as a pattern for discipleship; and how culture influences every perspective – conservative or liberal. A critical emphasis, for any student or believer, is an evaluation of how we read and understand the scriptures considering their nature and identity and the divine purpose for human flourishing (shalom). This exercise is essential, as it most likely shapes the path to one set of conclusions versus another, especially in the matter of women and equality. Careful attention is given to the story of women in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, with necessary emphasis on both the biblical and cultural contexts for understanding and analyzing what appear to be clear, proscriptive New Testament texts. Young explores what impact the eternal divine goal of new creation may have in the present; how gospel mission concerns shaped New Testament instruction in various church settings; and how those same missional concerns in twenty-first century Western cultures might require a different set of considerations. A final series of excurses seeks to address somewhat ancillary yet important elements in church and family relating to men and women, including the Greco-Roman household, the nature of church leadership, and gender and identity. Young seizes on the possibility that a cruciform model might provide a fresh way forward; a subversion of power orientations in churches, while introducing a promise of jubilee that brings gender distinctions into divine balance.
I understand I am just reading the advertising teaser/synopsis, but would it be fair to paraphrase an intent of the analysis is to say "In order to be faithful to scripture in the present world, may require a different answer than scripture suggests"? I ask this because I have written and argued one of Paul's overwhelming concerns was to avoid any disrepute being brought against the nascent Church. Thus you restrict women's leadership in the first Century. But, today in order to not bring the Church to disrepute in society is to include women in leadership. Segregating them out today, does the same as including them in the first century.
Yes. That’s accurate. That is one of my arguments within the book. That Paul even subsumed his own freedoms at times for the free flow of the gospel in order to provide the best chance for those freedoms to be properly grounded. I also argue that there are what some scholars call “seed texts” that point toward full equality (Gal. 3:26-29; Col. 3:10-11; etc). As well as that any proscriptions for women roles are culturally related as opposed to universal. But that comes out from an analysis of each particular text and its context both locally and broadly.
It should arrive next week and will go onto my vacation reading list in late April/May. Read your bio on Amazon. When you were at USF did you do much with Dr. Jim Strange? I served in Clearwater from 84-87 and then Lakeland from 87-90. Took some adult Ed stuff with Jim and then regularly attended some Biblical Archeology conferences at Florida Southern with him. Great guy! Oh, and we are fellow alums of USF, mine was a BA in MassCom in '74 before my seminary work at Lutheran Southern in Columbia. SC from 80-84. Got my M.Div. there. p.s. Your wife looks lovely! Have a blessed Easter.
Gentlemen, on a practical level, each and every man child's personal, home life experience, (IMO) weighs heavily on his treatment of women as an adult. Respect in the home breeds the same throughout life. PS Thanks for the heads up I'll order mine tomorrow. Okay it's a kindle so I'm into the beginning, just over100, a long way to go yet.
If I may, with the fact that I'm a reader not a writer and my book learning is not up to your standard, where you've come from in life is not jermain to the subject you write about. My suggestion, for the future, the KISS principle. The, I've walked in your shoes, is unnecessary and quite frankly is belittling to some. You've picked a wonderful and worthy subject matter, very dear to my heart, the truth of your story shines thru, let that be your guiding light. PS In my travels I've found that rich, poor, white, colored, educated or not the truth always shines thru. I sincerely hope I have not offended you or your quest.
I first heard the concept of "Jubilee" here in Jackson from John Perkins, who is known in evangelical circles as a Christian civil rights advocate who has published much on racial reconcilation.
I kinda stumbled in here and I am not religious at all. I tend toward anti-religious, to be honest. But I am not looking to stir up trouble or conflict here. It seems like there might be room here for reasoned conversation on this and if there is that is what I'm looking for. If there's not then please ignore what I am about to say. From the perspective of someone who is highly skeptical of religion and the "authenticity" of the ancient religious texts, it seems like those texts, if truly God's word or even religious leaders' word, should be "above" worrying about public perception or disrepute to the church. They should be leading on this issues, not conforming to public sentiment about what might be considered "disreputable." If God wants women to be considered equal to men and similarly respected, it seems like the scriptures should say that. Why would God be worried about what people may think? Shouldn't God be above that? Shouldn't the religious leaders credited with writing the scriptures be above that? It seems like severe contortionism to interpret the kinds of passages at https://www.openbible.info/topics/women_inferior_to_man to mean anything other than women are inferior to men and should be subservient. If the answer is that "well, that stuff was just written by men and back then they really didn't know what they were talking about" then why should we credit any of what's in the texts/scriptures as being important or valuable? If the answer is "well, God didn't want to freak people out and tell them things they weren't inclined to believe" then it seems like God isn't/wasn't above mankind, he/she/it was subservient to it and not even willing to take a leadership position on these (or any?) issues.
This is Da'Fins thread so if he wants this moved, please say so. I appreciate your position Fin but we are operating from radically different starting points. I am unaware of any authoritative religious text which operates in the way you suggest they "should". While I am familiar to most of the major religion's core texts, I can speak best to Christian ones so I will start there. Of the 66 books which comprise the Christian Bible, none were written with the prior intent of being Holy Writ. It was only after time and the use of followers that those writings were seen by believers to be authoritative. We would use the word "canon". A common point for all religion's "gods" is their desire for people to acknowledge them by the free choice of the believer. To be compelled to believe is anathema. In addition, humanity exists in time and in relationship. Thus our canons reflect actions which affect the original reader in their situations and then need to be read into new situations as they arise. Of course this leads to conflict and disagreement as any human endeavor will. Look at the arguments today about how the US Constitution should be read today versus 240+ years ago. The methodologies are similar. Science may simply build "truths" upon "truths" as time passes. Mathematics works in a similar way. But human interactions don't. As a person of faith, I attribute that to the reality of human sinfulness and the constant desire of people to try and rule over everyone else. Those realities are ongoing and circular where you are looking for a fully linear growth. Hope this makes sense to you and answers some of your questions. Frankly this would be better over a couple of glasses of an adult beverage in a ftf discussion, but I suppose this will have to do.
You (and others) are surely more knowledgeable about this than I am, but it is my understanding that the Ten Commandments were supposedly written with the prior intent of being Holy Writ. Same with the Torah, which I believe is the first 5 of the 66 books of the Christian Bible. Again, you are undoubtedly more knowledgeable about this than I am, but if my point above is correct that's doesn't necessarily seem to be true. Aren't the first 3 of the Ten Commandments: I am the LORD your God; you shall not have strange gods before me. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day. As "commandments," how is that to be "compelled to believe"? As a lawyer, the Constitution is something about which I am more knowledgeable than the religious texts. Even with something written "only" 240 years ago there is plenty of "mischief" in how people choose to interpret it to mean virtually whatever they want it to mean. Seems like with the ancient religious texts that is even moreso the case -- to the point where I find all of it should be taken with a grain (or a ton) of salt. I do agree with your observation about the "constant desire of people to try and rule over everyone else" but from my perspective that seems to be exacerbated by the religious texts themselves, which talk about certain types of people being inferior to or subservient to others, Chosen people, etc.
The Ten Commandments (and btw, thank you for giving the Lutheran version of the first three) were far more than a basis for law. They were seen originally as a blueprint for how to live the best life possible. In other words, "follow these commandments and you will have the best life!" Every person should look at them and of their own free will, agree they are best and thus follow them negating a need for a law code. As such, using them as a basis for a law code is in itself a modification of their initial purpose. The Torah was put together over centuries and includes a variety of writings, many if not most of which were "stories" to explain why things are the way they are or at least should be. They form the "mythos" of the family of Yahweh followers. I use mythos to define stories which a people tell to explain themselves. Torah explains that the events that occurred were in the hands of the Hebrew God as opposed to the Egyptian or Mesopotamian deities. People have misused their status as "chosen" from the beginning. I am called to be a servant as was the whole "Holy People" never to lord our "choseness" over anyone else. That is tied back to our nature as sinful people.
My point is that the Ten Commandments, including those first 3, were supposed to be God's word and were supposed to be followed. I don't think they would have been referred to as "commandments" if they were just "recommendations" to take or leave as one wished. Why would one look at them as just decide, based on free will, that they are the best? A person seeing them for the first time would have no reason (other than someone saying you have to) to decide based on free will that taking the name in vain or keeping a particular day "holy" would have any real benefits. I am sure that in reality the Torah was put together over centuries by human beings, but that is NOT the "mythos" of the Torah. The "mythos" of the Torah, as I understand it, is that God created it before the world was created and gave it to man. I'm not sure if you are distinguishing the Ten Commandments as "mythos" from the other religious texts, including the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, etc., but from my perspective it is all "mythos" -- in your words, "stories people tell to explain themselves." But since some of those stories are clearly not true, why credit any of them as anything more than interesting historical evidence of how ancient peoples saw themselves and the world?
The commandments were to be followed not simply because they came from God but because they were "written on our hearts". That is, in our hearts we knew they were the best way to live. Look at the full text of the beginning, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, you shall have no other gods." They describe a God who did not say, "Do this and I will bless you" but from a God who had already acted of the people's behalf. That is the point, the flood is not a story of Gilgamesh and the water demon but of a God who delivers His people. Those "mythos" describe that God, Yahweh, is in control. That is key. We are likely never going to agree and I am not trying to "convert" you, but I would hope you see that people who take my position are not all delusional or crazy.
Back to the book in the OP. My heart surgery threw my summer vacation and reading plans into the dumper. Just ordered the book from Amazon and it arrives next week. I'll comment to you once I've read it.
