I’m a fan of the author and seminary professor, aka, “The Old White Guy,” Steve Brown’s, “Steve Brown Etc” podcast. My parents have been ordering tapes from him for years, via his Key Life ministry, which they initially found through his spot on Moody radio. No offense to the many Key Life tapes I was told I *had* to listen to by my excited folks (and the tapes were good, really, they were), but I like Steve Brown Etc better than Key Life, probably, I don’t know, because I’m younger and I get a kick out of the goofing around (by Steve and his great crew) and the “edgy” (well, for a conservative) topics and authors invited…?
This week’s guest, Carolyn Custis James, talked about Complegalitarian. Not quite completely, as she kind of forgot to mention us by name (heh, slight oversight on her part, I’m sure), but much of what she shared are topics that directly apply to what we often discuss here. Carolyn spent a little bit of time reflecting on the two views of women, the confusing and difficult place it puts women (since every group and person has a different distinct spot on the spectrum where they feel women should not cross), and why her Synergy conference—geared toward women who are in various forms of ministry—purposely refuses to talk about either side of the spectrum.
Carolyn also spent a little bit of time talking about some women in the Bible who break with convention, like Ruth, a tale that she says is often presented as a romantic Hallmark card story, but decidedly isn’t.
You can listen to the podcast here, The Gospel of Ruth: Carolyn James on SBE. Your thoughts, reflections, teeth-gnashing froth or giddy excitement are all welcome, as always, in the comments box below (as long as they are within the parameters of the comment policy, of course). And will someone please tell Carolyn to mention us by name next time?
[...] HT:Complegalitarian blog [...]
Molly,
Gave it a listen.
What I really, really like about this is what she said at the end about her discussion on the book of Ruth.
People think that when it’s a story about women, somehow it makes men less.
(Is this the Greek/Hellenization thinking, either or, neither nor thinking cropping up? Black and white thinking? Either men are on top or women are on top? Both can’t be on top? If one is the head the other must be the tail?)
Carolyn pointed out just how strong these women were and pointed out briefly that their strength in no wise underminded Boaz’s strength or stature.
I wish, I wish, I wish that comps, even if they can never agree with egal, that they would understand that egal is not about women being on top. It’s not about women being the head and men being the tail. It’s about men and women both being strong and living free.
As far as the ever moving invisible line of accepted behavior for women…
After living with it a while, soon you’re afraid to do anything because whatever it is you do, it WILL offend somebody.
Then after living like that for a while in the tightest little box you can construct, you’re so exhausted you don’t care who you offend.
Neither place is a good place to live.
We are in the midst of studying Ruth in Sunday school, so I got James’ book to give me her insights, which were many.
I will listen to her talk when I can.
Coincidentally, the current issue of JBMW has a review of James’ book on Ruth:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-13-No-2/Is-This-Good-News-for-Women
Naseli’s praise was very good and reasonable. Her claims of weaknesses though was pretty weak IMO. Naseli claims that
1. she question’s James’ use of the word gospel in its basic meaning, rather than always equating it with the gospel of Christ. To me that shows a lack of knowledge of the use of Hebrew on Naseli’s part.
2. She thinks that James’ examples of ‘breaking the rules’ (part of the subtitle to the book) is stretching the concept and unconvincing.
3. She claims James’ tone was lacking appropriate reverence for God. This is clearly reaching since I know James’ other books and James obviously loves God deeply. Such a claim is somewhat prejudicial IMO.
4. She claims that James has an agenda of liberating women from identification of subservience to men. I would call that a strength. Naseli claims that James emphasizes “that women’s domestic duties are not enough to make them equal contributors”.
What surprises me in point 4 is that Naseli would want women to be subservient and that she would think that domestic ‘duties’ would make women equal contributors. Modern hierarchichalists (Eric did I spell that right?) do not claim that women are equal in their social contributions, but that women are equal by reason of their personhood. It’s not what they do but who they are. (Of course, they also say that women are subservient because of their gender, so that is confusing). Further, I suspect James is trying to enlighten women that social contributions (domestic duties) are not to replace (be an instead of) for a whole and full spiritual life with the Lord, which I have often seen in Patriarchal circles. (see the yahoo group, ‘ThePatriarchsWives’). And to my knowledge non egals do not consider the social and spiritual contributions of the men equal to the domestic duties of he women.
In point 4c she says:
“(c) Rather than explaining Ruth as a woman who willingly sacrificed to support her family and home, James defines Ruth as an ezer-warrior (211)!”
Yet, in the second chapter Naseli says:
“Throughout the book, James examines the loss, grief, and response of both Ruth and Naomi in chapters on widowhood, barrenness, submission, love, self-sacrifice, and God’s sovereignty.”
She goes on to complain about James definition of submission as self sacrifice, claiming the James is trying to embolden women to be independent of men. I might ask why should women be taught to be dependent upon men. Shouldn’t we be dependent on God and then support and encourage one another? And finally she laments that the book has an egalitarian flavor to it. But we know that simply means she wishes it had an hierarchic flavor to it.
All in all, it was not a bad review.
It’s about men and women working together as Christians for a common goal. Using both thoughts and talents effectively. It’s about being willing to love God enough to break human rules, following His lead in our lives, being willing to offend in order to not be held back from doing and being what God calls us, even women, to do and be. That usually is the opposite of human rules.
One thing that James points out well is that Ruth is always “pushing” the expected mores of society in her goal of helping Naomi. The question in the subtext is “Who is going to say Ruth is wrong for doing this?” even as it shocks the original readers.
No one mentioned what James said about feminism being about women “wanting to be men.”
I found that to be an odd comment at first but eventually understood why she said/feels that way.
I guess I’ve met enough female egals who call themselves feminists who never gave me the impression that they wanted TO BE men. They just wanted the same biblical rights and freedoms that men claim for themselves that all Christians should have. (Aren’t women human?)
This is not to direct this conversation into whether Christians should have or think about their “rights”.
This is to bring attention to what James said about women wanting to be men.
And I was wondering if anyone has actually met that kind of woman (besides the one in the pregnant man thread). And especially if anyone had met a self-proclaimed Christian woman who wanted to be a man in the egal movement. They may very well exist. I’m the first to admit I’m sheltered in my little corner of country living paradise.
Mara, I missed that statement by James. She may well be just trying to distance herself from the negativity associated with the term feminism. The idea probably didn’t originate with her, but possibly with a non egal. Too bad the secular has taken over and somewhat changed the original meaning. For many Christians the word feminist is used almost like a swear word. The dictionary definition is positive and good. But it’s losing that definition in the secular feminist movement.
As for Christian egals wanting to be men, what a crazy thought. Never met anyone like that and I know a lot of Christian egals. There is not even one book out by a Christian egal that has such a tone to it.
Hey, I am a Christian egal and I want to be a man!
LOL Don. hehe Good one!
I can understand where the idea of “women want to be men” comes from and I think this type of desire in women will increase when they learn in church that they are undesirables.
Personally, it was a slap in the face for me to read “God wants all men to be saved” (link to 4 Bible versions which all say this)
OF COURSE if God only wants men to be saved then I want to be a man!!! What is so hard to understand about that?
[...] 3, 2009 by Charis I think the egals are in denial if they won’t admit it. I admit it! I’m not [...]