Talk

Advanced search

Woman takes role of women in Bible literally for a year to challenge church leaders

(11 Posts)
kim147 Tue 16-Oct-12 19:11:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

grimbletart Tue 16-Oct-12 19:34:31

And how precisely does it do that? The article doesn't explain.

RiaOverTheRainbow Tue 16-Oct-12 19:36:41

That's interesting. Do you know if she had any effect on church leaders/local community?

kim147 Tue 16-Oct-12 19:39:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LRDtheFeministDragon Tue 16-Oct-12 21:07:26

She'd have done better to do a Bible studies 101 class.

That is very rude of me, but this gets right up my nose. How is she drawing attention to the role of women as leaders? Does she honestly not get that she's following 'rules' set out in a bunch of texts written at a wide range of different times, by a wide range of different writers, and cobbled together a hugely long time later?

I mean, sure, people have been reading the Bible as a unified text for a long time, so there's validity in looking at what it says about women ... but following it literally suggests you don't actually understand how it was written. Or even what the New Testament points out about the Old Testament and the rules therein.

I read bits of her blog and she doesn't really answer this one.

I think it's an ill-conceived stunt and another way of dressing up 'empowerment' that's really good old ahistorical misogyny.

RiaOverTheRainbow Tue 16-Oct-12 22:34:58

I'm still not quite sure what the point was. To be a better Christian? To point out flaws in (literal interpretations of) the Bible? It's not obvious to me that her motivations were at all feminist.

kim147 Tue 16-Oct-12 22:36:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ballroompink Wed 17-Oct-12 14:05:28

Part of the point of it is that she wanted to challenge the mainstream US evangelical ideal of 'Biblical womanhood' as something more like middle class 1950s womanhood than anything else.

Ria she has had a huge effect on people through her blogging and writing - she is a very controversial figure for a lot of US Christians who don't agree with her stance on women in the church.

GetAllTheThings Wed 17-Oct-12 15:11:36

Here is a famous letter written to a Christian broadcaster who claimed homosexuality was against biblical teachings.....

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-dr-laura-schlesinger.html#HFR6Z09z5MbB2rUK.99

YoullLaughAboutItOneDay Wed 17-Oct-12 15:26:57

There is a similar scene in the West Wing where Barlett takes down a Dr Laura figure. Makes me smile every time.

ScarePhyllis Thu 18-Oct-12 12:13:31

When I first heard about this I wondered exactly how different what she did is from living as an Orthodox or Ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman. Presumably there must be some overlap.

I think as balloon said, it is partly intended to examine the idea of 'living Biblically' for women, a concept that is much bandied about in evangelical circles in the US. I think her point is that you can't actually pin down what the Bible has to say about how women should live because it doesn't offer a single model of ideal womanhood. And probably also to highlight the absurdity of other people reading it as a unified manual on how to live.

Oh yes, and a large US Christian bookstore chain has refused to stock the book because it has two instances of the word 'vagina'.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now