a lingering question

oh, patriarchy, what have you done to us?

forgive me the dramatic opening line (if you must), but it seems that the Bible, despite its good (no, perfect) intentions, often doubles as a tool for promoting all sorts of inequalities and injustices--ever since it fell into our grimy little hands.

no new news here, unfortunately. but i had begun to believe that perhaps we were living in a time (we have votes! we have college education! we have pants!) when the ill-used Biblical passages regarding women would finally begin to regenerate into something positive--or at least something equal.

but then something slips in there that sadly reminds me that we women are still fighting an uphill battle. meaning that men don't have to be intentionally sexist to promote a continued system of patriarchy.

let me finally explain to you what i'm talking about.

i'm reading a book called The Search for Significance with my discipleship mentor. The author is Robert McGee. We're only two chapters in, and I think the content is going to be extremely insightful for this season of my life.

and then he quoted 1 Timothy 2.

yes ladies, you may well know this delightful little passage--voted 'most likely to be edited out if the council of nicaea was reconvened' (before you cry heresy, i'm only being charmingly facetious). especially if your name is rachel and/or you were a member of the women's life group led by said rachel and i, you know this passage. you know the depth of Christian character it takes to read this passage and still like Paul, to read this passage and still believe there is a place for women in ministry outside of sunday school teaching (as much as i love it) and bake-sale organizing.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. will be savedBut women through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety (vv. 11-15)

and the Lord knows (along with my discipleship group ladies) that I have begun to make peace with what Paul is saying here, to understand that he is not blatantly attacking womankind...but it still makes my blood boil a bit when it is quoted freely out of context, without any supplementary explanations by the alluding author.

in his book, mr. mcgee was attempting to explain (as Donald Miller did in Searching) how the Fall is the root of humanity's self-worth problems. before the Fall, Adam & Eve were defined solely by God's opinion of them, which of course was an opinion of unconditional love. after the Fall, we look to one another for self-definition, and because we are all imperfect people, our sense of self-worth is skewed. thus, mr. mcgee was generally discussing the Fall and chose to quote 1 timothy, stating that Adam, unlike Eve, was not deceived by the serpent. cue steam pouring from my ears and flashes of red. as it turns out, upon closer examination (by which i mean my actually reading the rest of the paragraph), his point was that Adam sinned deliberately, which may well have been worse than Eve's sin in ignorance. fair enough--they both sinned (hello romans 3:23), whichever way you look it at.

once i calmed down after this initial uproar, i continued onto the workbook section of the book. it was here that the subconcious patriarchy hit the fan. a set of the workbook questions was based on the ending verses of genesis 1. which, as all you biblical scholars will note, is the creation source that does not distinguish between adam and eve, instead stating that "male and female" were created in God's image. but still yet, each and every question which referred to that specific passage and no other asked "what did God command Adam?", "why would Adam do this?", Adam, Adam, Adam. and yet, the name Adam was not breathed in the passage. only male and female--one unit.

i was so angry that i scratched out every instance of "Adam" and replaced it with "humankind." the sad thing is, i may well not have noticed this had it not been for the fact that we recently discussed these passages in my disciple Bible study group and pointed out the source distinction. and likewise, when i voiced (huffed?) these concerns, my mentor gently reminded me that it was likely not an intentional slight on the part of the author--with which i agree. but that's what so bad, right? it's just assumed that Adam was first in charge, the commanding officer, running the show, receiving the commands. but he wasn't necessarily, and certainly not in this version that the author specifically quoted. but it's how mr. mcgee naturally thought--the general patriarchal mindset undermines his thinking.

okay, i know i'm getting a bit out of control, but i think it's these small slights that perpetuate a system where women (in any context) are still second in stature to men. and i want to use my voice to speak against that. to remember that male and female were together created in His image, to remember that Paul said there is neither male nor female for we are one in Christ Jesus (gal. 3:28). to know that 1 timothy 2 is holy scripture and has something invaluable to say to men and women that is NOT sexist.

ps--rach, i dreamed about you after this episode. it's no small wonder why--you are forever linked to this passage in my mind :) much like the monster mash...