Dr. Christopher Rollston is an accomplished academic and author. I respect his academic credentials (I've never met him personally, but I'm sure he's a decent enough guy), but his recent article in the Huffington Post is just, in my opinion, sophomoric. I encourage you to read it here. This type of biblical critique plays extremely well on the Internet and on cable television shows aired around significant religious seasons. It's the type of biblical "gottchaism" that popular culture celebrates. But is it true? Is it accurate? In this case, I think that Dr. Rollston's brief article is extremely misleading.
The thing is, I actually agree with Rollston's conclusion - at least the first part of it. He says at the end of his article: "People today often wish to turn to sacred literature for timeless tru[th]s about social norms. This impulse is certainly understandable. But that impulse can be fraught with certain difficulties." This statement is obviously true on all counts. We desire timeless truths from sacred literature, but these timeless truths are frustratingly elusive at times. Anyone who has genuinely struggled with scripture knows this is the case. Our culture is radically different than the biblical culture. (Though I've noticed that for most of us, whenever there is a cultural conflict we just assume that our culture is correct.) These differences in culture are certainly apparent when one considers gender roles in society. No one would deny that the Bible emerges from and reflects a patriarchal worldview, and this worldview is out of step with contemporary cultural assumptions and norms (at least in the west). But rather than dismissing scripture, the student of scripture enters into the hard work of trying to bridge that cultural gap.
My problem emerges in Rollston's next statement: "After all, to embrace the dominant biblical view of women would be to embrace the marginalization of women." I apologize to Dr. Rollston if I am misunderstanding him. But this is quite the exegetical leap. He has made a totalizing statement that the dominant view of women in scripture is one of marginalization. And so, the biblical message on this point must not be embraced or seriously studied but rejected. (And by no means should we think of adopting a spirit of humility ready to learn from the biblical text. Our sovereign task is to interrogate and expose the text.)
But is this totalizing statement even accurate?
He brings up the example of Jewish law as an example of this marginalizing tendency. Once again, no one denies that the Law does reflect patriarchalist assumptions. But anyone with his academic credentials knows that Jewish law, while patriarchal (jarringly at times), was nevertheless much more sensitive to the rights and needs of the marginalized (including women, orphans, and aliens) than the nations that surrounded them.
He cherry picks numerous other passages to support his case. Some support it better than others. (I'm not sure why he chose to devote so much time to Proverbs.) Let's admit, there are some passages of scripture that are difficult like some of Paul's statements about women's roles in the community of faith or some of the OT narratives that depict deplorable treatment of women. But that's a part of the problem. He casually brings up these passages from both the OT and the NT and pretends as if no deeper discussion of them is needed. No exegesis needed. No attempt to put the texts into their proper cultural context. Of course these passages must support his point. When in fact each one of these passages deserves a fair exegetical hearing. For instance, his treatment of the household codes of Colossians and Ephesians is almost laughable. He totally dismisses how counter-cultural Paul's command to husbands is and choses instead to point out that the nasty word "submit" is used for women. These passages that really speak to the dignity of women in the marriage relationship (especially when compared to the culture of the day) are dismissed as yet further examples of the marginalization of women. No honest explanation is even attempted. It is simply a gottcha text. Even if we were to concede the point that there are marginalizing texts in scripture, is it reasonable to conclude from those few passages that the overall message concerning women is one of marginalization?
He does charitably acknowledge that there are some renegade passages in scripture that support the dignity of women. But these are clearly minority reports. They don't reflect the real heartbeat of scripture. There just happened to be a few individuals in the pages of scripture who were enlightened, like us, before their time. (Of course, Paul must have written Galatians because look how egalitarian he is. The Paul we know never could have written those nasty things about women in 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy or Colossians or Ephesians.)
And why he chooses to talk about Job but not JESUS I'll never figure out. Seriously. Do the gospels and Acts exist in his New Testament? Read Luke. Read Acts. What you will find is story after story marvelling at the faith and the dignity and the sacrifice and the ministry of women. Is this the message of marginalization that Rollston is referring to?
He ends the article this way: "And sacralizing patriarchy is just wrong. Gender equality may not have been the norm two or three millennia ago, but it is essential. So, the next time someone refers to "biblical values," it's worth mentioning to them that the Bible often marginalized women and that's not something anyone should value." That's a nice and pretentious shot across the bow at conservative evangelicals. But does it ever occur to him where this cultural assumption came from? Why assume, as we do today, that gender equality is "essential?" The fact that he began this article by talking about Augusta National opening up its membership to women actually made me laugh. This is what passes for gender inequality? That women couldn't become members of a private country club in Georgia? Seriously, doesn't that sentence alone demonstrate how far we have come in gender equality over the last several millennia? But how did we get here?
It might be good to ask the question: If Christianity didn't exist, where would gender equality be today? Because he seems to be saying that the message of scripture is a message that needs to be overcome or perhaps even dismissed if we are going to have true gender equality. But this is not the case. It's not as if pagan philosophy has given us the idea of gender equality. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for forced abortions and infanticide. While Todd Akin is skewered publicly for arguing against abortion. (Although admittedly he sounded like a baffoon in the way that he approached it.) In the Roman Empire, women were so marginalized that it was excedingly rare for any family to raise more than one daughter. All other daughters would be abandoned or killed in their infancy. Rodney Stark in his book The Rise of Christianity argues that it was precisely the Christian community's view of the sanctity of life and marriage along with their dignified view of women that helped lead to its explosion of growth in the first Christian centuries. Apparently, they were reading a very different Bible than Dr. Rollston. The fact is that we wouldn't even have our treasured assumptions about equality and dignity were it not for the biblical testimony.
2 comments:
My biggest problem is that he listed off many examples of text that "marginalized" women, but didn't look into the fact that maybe these laws were in place to protect women. For example, the law about if a woman is raped, the raper can pay the bride price and take her for his wife. At first glance, yes this seems weird and not very fair. But this is looking through our 21st century, post-modern, American lens. In those times, if a woman was not a virgin, no one would take her as a wife, and she would be left alone, no one to provide for her. The fact is that he took scripture out of cultural context of the time and placed it in our world today.
Unfortunately I haven't had the years of scholarship to encounter Dr. Rollston prior to this, but assuming honest motives, I must heartily disagree with his conclusion. I merely hope to reveal a larger worldview, or presupposition, issue at hand as Rags and Drew have handled the contextual and historical facts. Quoting Rags, Dr. Rollston takes quite the "exegetical leap" to assume that his cut and paste Scriptural evidence captures the dominant biblical view of women in which he ends with. Moreover, Rollston's qualifying conclusions concerning sacralizing patriarchy and gender equality reveal much about his worldview. C.S. Lewis termed it "chronological snobbery" to assume our modern knowledge as far superior to the credulity of the biblical ancients; and while Rollston might not fall into such a logos fallacy, he sure seems to have stumbled into the ethos related "moral bigotry." To flat out acknowledge that gender equality may not have been the norm in biblical times and yet still accuse the biblical precedent as not valuable do to such shifting cultural differences that are now our own is rather narrow in scope. Given, Scripture does seem to lend itself to the push for women's liberation indicating that there is a moral line that needs to be met, regardless of culture, but such passages Rollston unfortunately skips over when claiming such a moral stance (Lk. 18:1-8; Acts 16:11-15, etc.). Thus, for the Word of God to transform culture from patriarchal times (as Rollston alluded most from), to the spiritual liberation of Jesus time, to the more physical liberation of today's times, understanding the biblical model and the church might actually be the most valuable understanding to have.
Post a Comment