WOMEN & The Role of Women in the Holiness Movement

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: Today our faculty spent the morning with Dr. Jo Anne Lyon and she introduced me to a helpful document about the critical role of women in the Holiness Movement. Below is a link to the downloadable document as well as the first few pages.

Read more or at … https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiSnons287OAhUIxGMKHQS3CMgQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyan.org%2Fd%2FeDkK%2FDayton-Donald-Wilber-Lucille-Sider—Women-in-the-Holiness-Movement.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH9l6BFpWJZjNFFeOrCmdH4xL0S4g&sig2=e1vYD2JIemgJR4BLr7FnCA&cad=rja

GENDER & How Religious Are Women Versus Men?

Facts and Trends, LifeWay, 10/4/16.

Women remain more interested in faith than men, both in the United States and around the world, according to Pew Research.

Six in 10 U.S. women say religion is very important in their lives, while two-thirds pray daily and 4 in 10 say they go to services at least once a week.

Among American men, fewer than half (47 percent) say religion matters to them. About half pray daily, and one-third say they go to church weekly.

There’s a similar gap worldwide. Pew estimates religious women outnumber men by about 97 million worldwide. The gap in church attendance and practice is particularly evident.

PewResearch.org

A recent LifeWay Research survey found a majority of women (51 percent) prefer to talk about their faith more than political issues, while a majority of men (69 percent) say they’d rather discuss politics.

Read more at … http://factsandtrends.net/2016/08/04/the-god-gap-how-religious-are-women-versus-men/#.V6MUqFT3aJI

POVERTY and U. Calif. research sheds light on why some women put motherhood before marriage

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: Catherine J. Edin and Marla Kefalas immersed themselves in the lives of unwed mothers in Philadelphia. The result was the best-selling book, Promises I can keep: Why 516CP2TE97L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_poor woman put motherhood before marriage, (Univ. of Calif. Press, 2005). An important read to understand poverty and its impact upon women, The Los Angeles Times summarized it this way “She (Edin) found that many of these women sought children as a source of love and meaning while disdaining marriage to men unable to provide economic stability” (Julia M. Klein, “Clear-eyed compassion for those stricken by poverty,” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2015, p. F10). Read their book for more insights. In addition Edin’s follow-up tome (co-authored with H. Luke Schaefer) is another insightful read, titled $2.00 a day: Living on almost nothing in America, (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015).

Read more at … http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-edin-shaefer-20151004-story.html

WOMEN & Fifty Shades of Grey: A Trilogy of Deceit, Collusion, and Domination #ChristiansForBiblicalEquality

Commentary from Dr. Whitesel: “Dr. Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality penned the following notes while attending the Carter Center’s conference on women and violence. Juxtaposition her important insights amid the deplorable media hype which promotes violence towards women.”

263.jpgBy Dr. Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality. She is a graduate of the University of Colorado and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary. She holds a PhD in historical theology from the University of Durham, England. She and her husband, Dale, live in the Twin Cities. Follow her on Twitter @Mimi_CBE.

As the film industry promotes “Fifty Shades of Grey,” launching on Valentine’s Day, I sit beside sixty scholars, activists, and faith leaders from more than twenty countries at a forum convened by the Carter Center: “Beyond Violence: Women Leading for Peaceful Societies.” Working to end the domination of women worldwide, these leaders recognize that “prejudice, discrimination, war, violence, distorted interpretations of religious texts, physical and mental abuse, poverty, and disease fall disproportionately on women and girls, as Jimmy Carter notes in Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power. Together, these human rights defenders are refining bold and creative strategies to overturn systems, structures, and worldviews that abuse, marginalize, dominate, and annihilate girls and women worldwide.

While these activists labor to combat abuse, filmmakers are working to normalize the sexual domination of women as entertainment. With scenes holding women in bondage, men inflict pain re-framed as “discipline” in the form of sadism and masochism, offered as the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Meanwhile, in hidden corners of nearly every city of the world, girls and women are held in secret prisons and brothels where they endure gang-rape. Firearms and other weapons are used as instruments of rape, and rape itself is unleashed as an instrument of war. Targeted by the military, girls and women are murdered by the masses–a horror undocumented by the world’s journalists. Women, whose daughters have been abducted by extremists, wake up every morning wondering, “Is she alive?”

Read more at … http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=b0720554-9920-4fa7-b677-f253ce004538&c=9cb55140-0518-11e4-9c4f-d4ae52754007&ch=9cba3340-0518-11e4-9c4f-d4ae52754007

WOMEN & Women As Witnesses in the Gospel of John #FullerSeminary #GELadd

by Marianne Meye Thompson, Arise, 7/4/15.

c8250cfd-3f7b-4ade-998a-dbfb44fde333.jpgMarianne Meye Thompson is the George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. While specializing in the Gospels and particularly the Gospel of John, she has written on Colossians, the epistles of John, and various theological topics such as God as father in the Scriptures. She is an ordained teaching elder in the PCUSA, married to John, and proud mom to two grown daughters.
When we think about the question of “women’s roles” in the church today, we are pressed to ask how the Scriptures portray and define the roles that women may and ought to exercise in the church. For some interpreters, the question comes down to offices that women were authorized to hold, or to which they were “ordained.” Thus, one asks: were women called and designated as “apostles” or “teachers” or “overseers” or other apparently somewhat official roles in the church? Backing up a bit, the question has often been asked, were women among the Twelve chosen by Jesus? If not, does this mean that they ought not to serve as “leaders” in the church? In other words, how one conceives of women’s roles today often rests on how one pictures any official positions that they were authorized to hold in the early church.

On this score, the Gospel of John provides an interesting case study. There are two persons who figure importantly in the Gospel: Simon Peter, and the disciple simply known throughout the Gospel as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (often designated by the shorthand “beloved disciple”). At the end of the Gospel of John, in Jesus’ final recorded resurrection appearance in that Gospel, Jesus commissions Peter to “tend my flock” and “feed my sheep.” In other words, Jesus now gives to Peter a role that he earlier claimed for himself (John 10:1-11), that of shepherd or, in Latin, a pastor.

The point is not that Peter becomes Jesus, or exercises the task of shepherd in precisely the same way, but that there are striking parallels between what Jesus has done and what Peter must do as he is entrusted to care for Jesus’ own sheep. The Roman Catholic church traditionally emphasizes the distinctiveness of Peter’s calling; he is the first “pope” of the church. Other interpretations have justified the limitation of the pastoral office to men on the grounds that it is Peter, a male disciple, who is given that role, walking in the footsteps of Jesus to shepherd the people in his charge…

Read more at … http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=d0f5ec79-8dff-4526-9e7f-16aed50aa066&c=9cb55140-0518-11e4-9c4f-d4ae52754007&ch=9cba3340-0518-11e4-9c4f-d4ae52754007

WOMEN LEADERS & Rethinking One of Paul’s Passages about Women #ScotMcKnight

by Scot McKnight, 6/12/15.

Lucy Peppiatt WTCThere are at least five reasons why we ought to reconsider the traditional (women ought to show submission to men in church gatherings) reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and these are Lucy Peppiatt’s five:

  1. The “spectacular array of contradictory commentary” on these verses should at least make us think we have not yet found a reasonable solution.
  2. The rhetorical readings of the passage, readings that genuinely resolve the tensions in the passage and with big themes in Paul’s letters, have not been refuted. They’ve most been ignored. Here she refers to Thomas Shoemaker, Alan Padgett, and Jose Vadakkedom.
  3. The historical reconstructions of what was at work behind the women wearing veils theory are far from convincing. Which, she asks in a telling way, is more credible? Women acting totally out of line and out of character or males emerging out of a misogynist culture acting misogynistically in church settings?
  4. The whole shame and honor “respect” Paul — according to traditional readings — wants to keep in tact goes against Paul’s constant rebutting of acting in a ways that bring honor. Put differently, asking Paul here to be pushing the honor categories of the Roman world asks Paul to act against his own teaching.
  5. Paul’s big theme of radical equality in Christ (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11) is mocked by radical inequality if the traditional reading of 1 Cor 11:2-16 is right.

Lucy Peppiatt, in Women and Worship at Corinth, is right on each of these tension points. The passage has not been explained adequately by those who think each of the words in our passage stems from Paul and expresses Paul’s own theology.

The problem at Corinth is a lack of unity in the gatherings. Oneness in Christ needs to be seen in concrete social settings. How they are behaving when it comes to worship, the Lord’s Supper and spiritual gifts mock their unity. The problems in these areas — note this term — is domination by those with more social cache. (This is my term, not Lucy’s.) So, and this is my reflection, one has to wonder if that same kind of domination is not being expressed in 1 Cor 11:2-16. (At least I do.) Paul’s “in Christ” theology, again, is radical and he knows it; we cannot expect him to undo it in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 by asking the Corinthians to act like the Roman culture all over again. New creation had been unleashed “in Christ” and it was to have radical implications at the social level of fellowship; it was not to be overturned out of respect to the Roman way of life.

Now to our passage: in short, the problems arise because we want to think 1 Cor 11:2-10 and 11:11-16 are expressing the same theology. A rhetorical reading, one that would have been “performed” well by the lector of this letter (see my post from yesterday), suggests these two sections do not cohere theology but conflict with one another because one is Paul’s response to the other.

Peppiatt, along with Shoemaker, Padget and Vadakkedom, proposes then that Paul interweaves words and views of the Corinthian male dominant crowd (found in the letter from Chloe) with his own responses. Thus, the passage would have been “heard” as Paul’s argument against head coverings, head coverings proposed by males who wanted females to be in submission in the public assembly.

Here is the scenario at work in the community of Christians at Corinth, and here she adapts Ben Witherington III’s scenario:

  1. Partisanship centered on particular Christian teachers.
  2. Cultural values of the wealthy that could lead to lawsuits.
  3. Unequal treatment of the lower status folks at the Lord’s table and dining in pagan temples.
  4. Hubris with respect to spiritual gifts.
  5. Disagreements about sexual conduct — inside and outside marriage.
  6. Disagreements on eschatology, esp the resurrection, and over reigning and glory.

Both Witherington and Peppiatt think — and #1 makes this clear — this is about some dominant males. The problem was well-to-do Gentile males. Bruce Winter, too, thinks there is a pervading masculine culture of dominance at work in Corinth (After Paul).

Peppiatt: Corinth was being dominated by some articulate, gifted males and they implemented some oppressive practices that was unraveling the freedom Paul’s gospel created. They wanted to display their glory, honor and authority on their heads (short hair, bald, etc) and wanted women to reflect their honor by what they wore on their heads. The males, in other words, were worldly in allowing the Roman culture of honor and shame to shape what worship looked like. This, she contends, is superior in explanation than the wild women theory.

Read more at … http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/06/12/rethinking-one-of-pauls-passages-about-women/

WOMEN LEADERS & Women Directors Change How Boards Work For The Better Research Discovers

by Laura Liswood, Harvard Business Review, 2/19/15.