Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood?

https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-anyone-need-to-recover-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-a-review-article-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

What makes some women glorious?

but woman is the glory of man (1 Cor 11:7).

1. In this post I'm not exegeting 1 Cor 11:7. I'm just using that verse as a launchpad to offer my personal interpretation of what makes some women glorious. Men think a lot about women, and there are many different ways to appreciate women. In a secular culture that degrades womanhood, as well as some religious cultures (e.g. Islam), I think it's useful to unpack the notion. 

2. Some women are iconic. They project a feminine ideal even though they aren't virtuous women. 

3. The cliche example of a feminine ideal is a visually beautiful woman. An optimal example of the female form. 

It's interesting that Paul uses hair to illustrate the glory of women (1 Cor 11:15). He uses an aesthetic criterion rather than a spiritual criterion. That's because he trades on alternating literal and figurative connotations of headship, but it's still striking that he doesn't focus on sanctity to illustrate the glory of women, even though he undoubtedly rates that higher than hair. 

4. Another example of feminine beauty is a vocal beauty. A woman with a beautiful singing voice. Men and boys can also have great singing voices, but a fine female voice has a an unmistakably feminine timbre. So that's another uniquely feminine ideal. 

5. Some women are gifted writers. They write with eloquence and psychological insight. And they write with a uniquely feminine sensibility. 

This may also be true of female directors. I haven't done a systematic comparison. And this may also be true of some female musicians (e.g. Alicia de Larrocha).

6. Some women embody natural character virtues that make them good wives and mothers. 

7. Some women embody moral heroism. Ironically, it's possible for a woman to be morally heroic even though she's not a virtuous woman. Marlene Dietrich is a case in point. She turned down Hitler's offer to be the queen of the Nazi cinema. She sided with the Allies. And she entertained the troops on the frontlines, at risk of being killed or–even worse–captured alive. Imagine what the Nazis would have done to her if they caught up with her!

Yet she wasn't a good woman. She was a quintessentially decadent woman.

8. Some women embody spiritual virtues. They are saintly. Holy. Far advanced in sanctification.

Women, children, and Christianity

Between 31-38 minutes

Dr. Masson discusses how Christianity and the chivalric tradition transformed and upgraded the value of women and children compared to pagan cultures.

A New Way to Understand Men and Women in Christ?

https://cbmw.org/topics/book-reviews/a-new-way-to-understand-men-and-women-in-christ-a-review-of-rachel-green-millers-beyond-authority-and-submission/

Beyond Submission and Authority

https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-beyond-authority-and-submission/

"I married my best friend"

I cringe whenever I hear well-meaning Christians say something like that.

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/11/my-spouse-is-my-best-friend.php

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Leaving aside biblical theology for simple embodied experience, we all know that women are the glory of men. They are the thing that, when considering humanity as a whole, men themselves are most inclined to celebrate. If presented with the choice of saving either a man or a woman, we save the woman; we consider them of greater value. One woman’s face launched a thousand ships. Another’s is compared to a summer’s day. Just as the beauty of the lily is the glory of the pasture, so is the beauty of the woman the glory of the man.

https://bnonn.com/head-coverings-1/

i) I'd like to briefly revisit this claim. There's a lot of truth in this. Mind you, women have to compete with sports when it comes to what many men celebrate.

ii) Then there's the cliché example of the ambitious, competitive workaholic guy who puts career ahead of relationships. 

iii) As for considering women of greater value, so that we'd save a woman before we'd save a man, that's more complicated. Perhaps he means that all things being equal, if it's a choice between a random man and a random woman, the woman gets the nod. Rescuing strangers. 

iv) Even at that level, there are complications. What if it's a 5-year-old boy? I can't generalize. 

v) In addition, I wouldn't say men automatically value a wife or girlfriend more than they value their father, son, or brother. Unfortunately, many marriages come and go, but blood ties are nearly indestructible. Likewise, many male friendships outlast marriages. 

Veiling women

I'm going to comment on this post:

https://bnonn.com/head-coverings-1/

The danger of my commenting on Bnonn's post is that it's the first installment of a series with however many parts, which may work itself into a book, so Bnonn might steal my blindingly brilliant observations, claiming that he already addressed those concerns in a later installment. I won't get any credit! Humor aside:

The big squeeze

The Founders trailer has generated a lot of fallout, including:

https://founders.org/2019/08/01/resignations-from-founders-ministries-board/

To an outside observer, it looks like the squeeze was put on board members by power brokers in the SBC. If so, that ironically demonstrates the need for the very documentary at issue. 

I'm also puzzled by James White throwing Ascol and his colleagues over the back of the sled (on the DL). 

Minimalist complementarians

http://www.dennyburk.com/can-broad-and-narrow-complementarians-coexist-in-the-sbc/

Is preaching an exercise of authority?

i) One complementarian or patriarchal argument I sometimes run across is that women shouldn't preach in church because preaching is an exercise of authority, in which case female preachers are exercising authority over men. But that's a very strained argument. In what respect am I putting myself under the authority of the preacher by my physical presence and merely hearing the sermon? I've heard thousands of sermons. When I sit in church and hear the sermon, sometimes I agree, sometimes disagree, sometimes agree in part and disagree in part. In what respect did I put myself under the authority of the preacher? How is he exercising authority over me? 

ii) One problem is the definition of authority. It reapplies to prooftexts (e.g. 1 Tim 2:12) a diluted concept of authority which is not, insofar as I can tell, how the concept was understood in the ancient world–where the concept of authority was more coercive. Take the authority of kings, slave masters, commanding officers. Or the authority of a Roman father over his family. The power to impose your will on someone else. 

ii) Suppose we define authority as obligating belief and/or action. But surely the mere act of preaching doesn't obligate belief and/or action. The preaching of John Spong, Benny Hinn, Jeremiah Wright, or Pope Francis isn't authoritative. 

iii) We could say a sermon is authoritative insofar as it is true. But that wouldn't single out male preachers.

iv) Here's a more principled argument:

There are natural stereotypical physical and psychological differences between men and women. These are normative differences because they exist by divine design. As Jordan Peterson puts it, "Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically-minded, independent, stubborn)"

As a result, women are less naturally suited to be doctrinal guardians. They are generally less interested in doctrinal disputes. Less likely to get into theological fights. Less likely to enforce standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 

That's why God reserved eldership for men. It's hard enough to find faithful men who hold the line, and much harder to find women who do that. Women make an indispensable contribution to the life of the church, but when feminine values dominate the direction of the church, there's a loss of fidelity to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are exceptions, but a general policy shouldn't be based on exceptional situations or individuals–although it can make allowance for exceptional situations and individuals. The argument could be fleshed out, but it lays a deeper foundation than ad hoc arguments about preaching as a male domain because preaching is allegedly an exercise of authority.

Silence in church

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-reading-of-1-corinthians-1433b-34a.html

Token complementarianism

https://calvinistinternational.com/2019/01/16/male-only-ordination-is-natural-why-the-church-is-a-model-of-reality/

Failure of nerve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ryGknidNOY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGv5K1eoFbc

Defer to your husband

13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

3 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered (1 Pet 2:13-25-3:1-7). 

1. 1 Pet 3:1-6 is a complementation prooftext. Unlike some Pauline prooftexts (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13), 1 Pet 3:1-6 doesn't ground uxorial deference in the natural order, so I think it's a weaker complementarian prooftext than the Pauline examples–although it's certainly consistent with complementarianism. Eph 5:22-33 is another one of the stronger complementarian texts, grounded in a Christological analogy.

2. Because this is paired with Peter's discussion of slavery, some egalitarians use this as a wedge tactic: if complementarianism is the norm, so is slavery. In 1 Pet 2-3, they rise and fall together. 

3. That's an interesting argument, but the issue is more complex. To begin with, biblical regulations don't necessarily indicate approval. Biblical codes of conduct aren't utopian. Biblical codes of conduct are sometimes pragmatic, given the vicissitudes of life in a fallen world. It's important to consider the underlying rationale for biblical regulations. 

4. Imagine how dangerous it would be to a slave to be insolent to his master. Imagine how dangerous it would be to a 1C wife to be insolent to her husband. At a minimum, this is prudential guidance. 

5. Although Peter counsels wives to be deferential to their husbands, that's only half the story. It has a subtext. The implied context is Christian wives married to pagan husbands. Presumably, both were heathen at the time of marriage, but the wife is now a convert to Christianity. But as one commentator notes:

Peter's advice to women married to [pagan] husbands "should be understood against the social background in which a wife was expect to accept the customs and religious rites of her husband…In society's eyes these women were already highly insubordinate just by virtue of their Christian commitment. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Thomas Nelson 1988), 157. 

So Christian wives are expected to be both submissive and independent. They are bucking the system by refusing to accede to their husband's religion. So it's not just about assuming a subordinate role. For the backdrop is assuming an insubordinate role. Those are balanced. 

6. In addition, Karen Jobes says Greco-Roman wives were not supposed to have any friends outside her husband's social circle, but as a Christian she will develop friendships within the Christian community. K. Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker 2005), 203. So there's a maverick element to the role of a Christian wife. In a mixed marriage, her duties include uxorial independence as well as uxorial deference. 

7. Peter's counsel includes the duties of a husband as well as a wife. His should be an understanding husband who honors his wife. 

What does Peter mean when he says the wife is the weaker vessel? Since he doesn't explain his terminology, we can only speculate:

i) Presumably it includes the fact that women in general are physically weaker than men.

ii) In addition, Jobes quotes Aristotle and Xenophon who say women are not as psychologically hardy as men. They are less aggressive than men (Aristotle, Xenophon). In addition, a man's mind and body have greater stamina to endure heat and cold, outdoor tasks, journeys, and military campaigns (Xenophon).

In the ancient world, full of bandits, burglars, rustlers, wild animals, feral dogs, and warfare, men are wired to protect and provide for women, not just physically, but by virtue of their natural psychological makeup. And that has modern counterparts. 

iii) Jobes thinks it may also refer to lower social status. Ibid. 209. 

Paul and gender

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/paul-and-gender-a-review-article

Clinging vines

I'd like to make one more observation about "Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos". It's a well-intentioned article that has a grain of truth. However, it reinforces a damaging stereotype of complementarianism. It plays into the popular prejudice that complmentarianism is equivalent to The Handmaid's Tale. 

That's because the position advocated in the article isn't complementarianism. It seems to take the position that at every stage of life, females need to be under male supervision. That reflects a quintessentially Muslim viewpoint. They remain under their father's authority (or uncles or brothers) until they marry, then authority is transferred to the husband. There's nothing in-between. 

It's not good to foster a subculture of dependance, where wives are clinging vines. For one thing, in a fallen world you never know who will let you down. 

But beyond that, some women find themselves in situations through no fault of their own where they must provide for themselves. Where they must take the lead (cf. 1 Sam 25).

I had an aunt who was a widow for 40 years. Her husband died of a heart attack when they were in their early fifties. She desperately wanted to remarry, but she just wasn't eligible. 

His premature death made her a single mom. But because she had a nursing degree to fall back on, she was able to support herself financially as well as her adolescent son. In fact, I think it was a two-income home even before her husband died. He tried to eke out a living as a TV repairman. I doubt he made enough money to support the family. She had a more stable source of income than he. 

I had another aunt who was a widow for 25 years. But because she had a doctorate in linguistics, she got a job as a college prof. She was able to provide for her needs. 

There are responsible and irresponsible men, responsible and irresponsible women. Sometimes a responsible woman marries an irresponsible man. Or sometimes they're both irresponsible, but she learns the hard way. 

Debt-free virgins

Recently, a Christian blogger named Lori Alexander did a click-baity post that went viral:

https://thetransformedwife.com/men-prefer-debt-free-virgins-without-tattoos/

It's actually a running commentary on what another woman said, much of which she agrees with. 

On a positive note, I appreciate the attitude which she and her friend exhibit. Many women would do well to emulate their spirit. However, the post suffered from many hasty generalizations.

"The Patriarchy"

For "Progressive Christian/evangelical feminist" critics, the Paige Patterson scandal is yet another example of why "the Patriarchy" is irredeemably evil. Yet another reason Christians should ditch complementarianism for egalitarianism. 

There's a grain of truth to this, although it's highly misleading. In the nature of the case, only people in positions of authority can abuse their authority. If men have all the power, then the abusers will all be men. That's a straightforward correlation.

But that cuts both ways. That doesn't mean that if you replace men with women in positions of power, you thereby eliminate abuse of power. Feminism/egalitarianism amounts to gender reassignment abuse of power. There's no dearth of women who abuse their authority, viz. Rose Bird, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Loretta Lynch, Annise Parker, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, Sonia Sotomayor.

Both sexes need the moderating influence of the opposite sex to temper the excesses to which each sex is prone. And that's a complementation insight. And without the grace of sanctification, it's a choice between male and female villains. 

Superheroines

Recently, Bnonn did a provocative post on whether the superheroine is consistent with Christian theology:

https://bnonn.com/why-a-woman-bearing-the-sword-is-an-abomination-to-the-lord/

Actually, most of his post was a conventional defense of traditional complementarianism (although there's a token complementarianism promoted by the likes of Carl Trueman that's making the complementation label useless). 

That in turn generated a Facebook debate involving examples like Jael and Buffy Summers. This gives me a chance to take a break from fluffy posts on Trinitarian metaphysics to something truly meaty. There are two separate issues:

i) The social roles of real women

ii) Superheroines

Let's take these one at a time.

1. Jael

To begin with, she's exceptional. But there's also the question of how we should visualize her. Is she a shieldmaiden, a la Brünnhilde? A female counterpart to Viking warriors? If you were a director, filming Judges, would you depict Jael like a Valkyrie? 

What if Jael is more like Mata Hari? It's not a trade secret that some women can penetrate a man's defenses in a way that no man can. To begin with, a man doesn't expect a woman to be dangerous. 

In addition, a man will drop his guard around an alluring woman. He's automatically receptive to her advances. So she can come within striking range in a way he wouldn't allow a warrior from the opposing army. 

I once saw the pilot episode of a short-lived crime drama. There was a male murder victim and two homicide detectives. As I recall, the murder victim was knifed from the front. The male homicide detective was puzzled by how the killer was able to get within range. Since most killers are men, his unquestioning assumption was that the killer was a man.

But his female partner conjectured that the killer was a sexy woman. That's why the unsuspecting murder victim let the killer get so close. 

2. Buffy

It's been many years since I watched it, and I never saw the entire series. With that disclaimer out of the way:

i) Because Buffy has superpowers, she's credibly the physical superior of normal men. However, some female characters are given superpowers so that they can replace the male protagonist in actions films.

ii) Some superheroines fall flat because a pretty ingénue with no acting chops is cast to play the part. Buffy works, not just because the character is well-written, but because of Geller's performance. Same thing with Faith.  

ii) However, Buff retains her femininity. She's sassy, but some women are naturally sassy. And she's emotionally vulnerable. 

iv) However, her vocation comes at a cost. Since no human male is her equal, her boyfriend is the vampire with the heart of gold. In one sense they're a match because they both have superhuman abilities. But they're classic star-crossed lovers, so that can't last. 

As I recall, her fallback boyfriend is a defective supersoldier, so that doesn't work out. And in any event, the series orbits around the Buffy/Angel axis. So she's never able to strike the right balance. 

v) Faith is the rival Slayer. More than Buffy, she illustrates the instability of the superheroine hybrid. It's too damaging to her feminine virtue. 

No doubt there are fans who can expatiate more learnedly than I on the Buffyverse. My interest level is decidedly limited.