Christopher Rollston's shocking discovery of patriarchy in scripture!

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.

Reform Judaism and the influence of "modern civilization"

Today we accept as binding only its moral laws and maintain only such ceremonials as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization. We hold that all such Mosaic and Rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas altogether foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. We recognize Judaism as a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason.

from the Pittsburgh Platform adopted by the Reform movement in the United States

in Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997) 53.

Reform Judaism and the application of the Law

A law, even though divine, is potent only so long as the conditions and circumstances of life, to meet which it was enacted, continue; when these change, however, the law also must be abrogated, even though it have God for its author. For God himself has shown indubitably that with the change of the circumstances and conditions of life for which He once gave those laws, the laws themselves cease to be operative, that they shall be observed no longer because can be observed no longer.

Samuel Holdheim, the first rabbi of the Reform congregation in Berlin, 1845

in Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997) 53.

Metaphor vs. Cliche

So, I recently had a five hour layover in Dallas. For some reason I started thinking about how much I can't stand it when Christians (including myself) speaking in cliches. I guess long layovers in airports are good for random thoughts. Long layovers in airports are also good for writing those random thoughts down. These thoughts might be good. They might be bad. Sitting in a coffee shop in an airport, they seemed brilliant - but probably the same type of brilliance that every college student enjoys while writing a research paper at three in the morning only to wake up the next day and realize that there's a reason why papers shouldn't be written at three in the morning. Regardless, I thought I'd share. (I've not edited for typos or anything, so...be nice.)

Easy clichés are utterly useless as a strategy for effectively communicating anything. Standing opposite of clichés are metaphors. Metaphors are expansive in their meaning. A good metaphor put into effective use can open up an exciting realm of possible meanings. Simply say that the Lord is a good Shepherd and our imaginations run wild with the implications. God is resolutely concerned for me and us – his sheep, his flock. And he puts that concern to work in manifold ways limited only by our imagination and time. This is the beauty of metaphor – to say so much with such an economy of words. Metaphor is absolutely necessary for communication. That is, if a person desires to communicate anything of substance, of meaning, of mystery. Those unhappy souls who insist on strict literalism or who remain blindly skeptical of anything that lies beyond pure scientific “fact” have doomed themselves to a life free from the painful joys of love, the mysterious attraction that exists between men and great bodies of water, or even the happy nostalgia that accompanies a night at the ballpark. Abandon metaphor and God won’t be far behind. Metaphors acknowledge our limitations, our humanness – that there are certain things that go beyond our ability to neatly or literally try to explain them. Certainly this must be true about a sovereign God. To say that we can only approach God through the veil of metaphor is not to say that God somehow doesn’t exist in reality – as if empiricism can tell us more than a fraction about reality. It is also not to say that God has not acted historically in a meaningful way, specifically through his Son. No, it is an acknowledgment that our understanding of God must always be imaginative. We cannot domesticate God with lazy literalism or stale systems of theology. Even the historical actions of God are understood through pictures and metaphors. You need to look no further than the cup of the Eucharist for proof. This is certainly why music and lyrics have always been an important part of religious expression – especially in the Judeo-Christian heritage – a heritage that insists on both the otherness and the nearness of God.


But clichés. If metaphors are expansive in meaning, clichés constrict meaning. Clichés actually manage to say less than their literal meaning. Both clichés and metaphor are succinct, but their effect is completely different. Metaphors advance conversation. Metaphors can successfully remain relevant and meaningful across the centuries and across the spectrum of cultures. Think about the number of cultures around the world from mountain villages in northern Europe to rice plantations in the Philippines who have had their imaginations captured by the notion that their sins may be made white as snow. Clichés are just as succinct, but rather than inspiring imaginative conversation they actually suffocate conversation. Rather than being disclosing truth, clichés actually obscure it.

Maybe an illustration will help. Clichés are the trade language of professional athletes and coaches everywhere. I often wonder if somewhere in the class schedule of the average division one athlete there is a course labeled: LA 110 – Sport Speak: A course offered specifically for the current or aspiring athlete. This course will instruct students in all of the latest techniques and approaches to speaking the language of sport. Upon the completion of this course, the student will be equipped to speak while saying absolutely nothing of substance. Final exams will consist in a press conference in front of real, professional journalists. If you are a sports fan, you have at some point been frustrated by the uselessness of the sports cliché. A critical game has just concluded. Your appetite for the game isn’t satisfied by the game alone. You want to know more. You want a behind-the-scenes explanation of exactly what went right or (what is most often the case for my teams) wrong. A reporter in the front row asks what sounds to you like a very good question – a question that you might have asked. “What exactly happened at the end of the third quarter that allowed you to start working your way back from that 10-point deficit? Was it a change in the defense or was it something that you saw the other team doing?” This is the point where all the hours in Sports Speak training pay off – and if it is a professional athlete they are almost admirably fluent in the language. (Perhaps the only profession more accomplished in the art of the cliché is the professional politician.) The original question is lost in an avalanche of sports cliché. All Sports Speak will hit on one or usually a combination of these themes: 1) a reference to something that their coach said to them which is supposed to sound inspiring but to those of us at home sounds incredibly obvious, 2) some sort of reference to the need for perseverance using vaguely militaristic terms like fighting or battling, 3) a mention of the importance of teamwork, 4) a compliment to the other team for their effort using some of the same terms from number 2 above – a compliment that usually manages to sound both empty and patronizing at the same time, 5) finally, we may be treated to the observation that this was in fact just one game in the midst of a season full of games that can only be played one at a time. Usually, this is preceded by the reminder that such a wise observation can only be properly made “at the end of the day.”

Maybe it is because the athlete wants to protect his team’s secrets. Maybe it is because he doesn’t want to sound ungracious in victory or defeat. Or maybe (more likely) he’s just being lazy and doesn’t feel like offering a thoughtful response. Regardless of the reason, the desired effect is almost always achieved unless the reporters that day happen to be unusually aggressive or ornery. The cliché has effectively killed the conversation. The cliché leaves no room for further imagination or explanation. Everything has been said. And nothing has been said. A cliché is a linguistic mirage. It appears at first to offer something of substance and meaning, but upon closer examination it is empty and frustrating. And often misleading.

Unfortunately too many of us have turned into that professional athlete/politician who is only capable or desirous to speak in clichéd sound bites when it comes to God. Rather than capturing the imagination or inspiring conversation we stifle both with cheap religious sounding clichés.

Christian cliché runs the spectrum from 1) the ridiculous and cheesy – pretty much every Christian t-shirt or church sign you’ve ever seen. Seriously, how does it help anyone to point out that there is “no stop, drop, or roll in Hell.” Has this ever worked as an evangelistic strategy? 2) the question-begging – “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” “Whenever God shuts a door, He opens a window.” Or my personal favorite – “It’s not a religion. It’s a relationship.” If you’ve been around Christians for very long at all you have heard one or all of these types of statements. They are intended to be declarative, “clinching” statements, but they are actually very misleading in their supposed simplicity. 3) the out-of-context” – Who hasn’t heard a Christian turn verses like Philippians 4:13 or Matthew 18:20 or Proverbs 22:6 into cheap clichés by taking them out of context and using them for his own immediate needs?

When I speak as a Christian, I will have to learn to speak in the language of metaphor if I am going to speak rightly of God (or of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, eschatology, salvation, etc.) – admittedly not an easy language to learn, and, like any language, is spoken better by some than others. Some metaphors are silly. Some are misleading or easily misunderstood. Many are not even biblical in their allusion and reflect more our contemporary desires for God than the biblical testimony of God. Nevertheless, we must learn to employ metaphor and well if we desire to speak of God (or to God for that matter).

Kant and Enlightenment Hermeneutics

For Kant practical reason provided the framework of categories for theology and also for christology. Anything "which is of no practical use" does not concern us. "Scripture texts which contain certain theoretical doctrines stated to be sacred, but surpassing every conception of reason (even of moral reason) may be expounded for the benefit of the practical reason, while those which conflict with practical reason must be so expounded." The doctrine of the Trinity "offers absolutely nothing of practical us...And the same is true of the doctrine of the incarnation of one divine person." Something similar can be said of the stories of the resurrection and the ascension. For "articles of faith do not mean what ought to be believed...but what for practical (moral) purposes it is practical and useful to accept, even though it may not be possible to prove it, but only to believe it." Thus the revelation of God can only be what is in agreement with what reason understands to be "appropriate to God." "In this way all expositions of scripture, in so far as they concern religion, must be made in accordance with the principle of morality intended in revelation, and without this are either in practice empty or even hindrances to good." For we understand only him who speaks with us through our own understanding and our own reason. Therefore "the God in us", i.e. the free conscience, is "himself the interpreter."

In Moltmann, The Crucified God (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 93-94.

Racial liberation and the gay marriage debate

One of the interesting side-plots in the whole gay marriage debate - especially since President Obama publicly announced his support - involves the disposition of the black church towards the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. James Cone announced his feelings loud and clear here. Of course this position comes as no surprise. Many within liberationist (both racial and gender) circles have been associating the causes of racial justice, gender justice, and sexual justice for years. Desmond Tutu, for instance, has said, “We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.” The reasoning is this: The Gospel is a message of liberation. The Kingdom is upside down - humbling the powerful while giving power to the powerless, chastizing the elite while comforting the marginalized. This is the guiding principle of liberation theology. And, despite the many flaws (and there are many) of liberation theology, it must be granted that the kingdom IS truly upside down and counter-cultural. We can (and will) argue and debate about how to best implement or practice this kingdom principle - but the principle itself is biblical and powerful.


Here is the question however: Does scripture regard issues of race and gender in the same way that it regards issues of sexuality? Because homosexuals are relatively powerless. They are certainly marginalized. Should the arguments applied to racial or gender liberation be applied to sexual liberation as well? The answer from scripture is clearly "no." William Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic illustrates this point pretty well. This is why most who associate sexuality with race and gender will choose to make arguments based on the fallibility, ignorance, or outright homophobia of ancient people especially Paul. Paul was just mistaken or perhaps he was closeted himself. If he would have been as enlightened as we certainly are, he would not have said those nasty things about homosexuality (or the dozens of other sins that we energetically try to justify in our own lives). Of course no one wants to be labeled a bigot or closed-minded. And this is unfortunately becoming the popular assumption. If you are against gay marriage, you are against civil rights, you are closed-minded, hateful, and probably dangerous. You might as well be one of those rednecks from the deep south spraying water hoses at black teenagers during the civil rights protests in the 60's. Classic straw man - falsely associating a person's beliefs with those of another, more despicable person for the purpose of dismissing or underminding their arguments. Clearly we are called to love and reconciliation. And clearly, we shouldn't treat homosexuality as some sort of "unforgiveable" sin (1 Cor. 6:9-11)! But if we are interested at all in taking scripture seriously on this topic, we must acknowledge that it does in fact call this "sin." It is just not regarded in the same way as race or gender. And to attempt to bully black churches (or anyone) into this position just because of their race (and their politics) is, frankly, insulting.

More Nationalistic Hermeneutics

I know that I can always count on the "local Bible store in the mall" for some wonderful Christian tchotchkes and some fantastic examples of the Bible handled poorly. My issues with this banner are: 1) It totally ignores the context and the historical situation of Numbers 10. 2) This exercise of prooftexting is done in the service of an unapologetically American nationalistic theology. 3) It reduces the message of scripture down to mere sloganism - as if the purpose of scripture was to supply us with endless witty sayings for our T-shirts, church signs, and decorative wall art. 4) If a cult group did this with scripture we would be justifyably indignant and the "local Bible store in the mall" would never dream of selling it.