AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part III (of VII)

More on Claire Powell’s Feminism

I really wanted to give only two segments of this expose` to Claire Powell’s article, "The Bible Through Women’s Eyes." Now it will be three. There is just too much in the way of Scripture-twisting in the article and I think it should be answered. And all these aspects give us a chance to do good logical interpretive work together and see some of the popular arguments feminists are using to subvert the Scriptures.

The title itself is misleading. First, is Claire Powell really the one to tell all women how they ought to think about the Bible? Why not Rosie O’Donnell, Phil Donahue, George Bush, or Madonna? I know plenty of Christian women that read the Scripture without a feminist interpretative template.

Second, and much more important, why should we accept that there are different legitimate views of the Scripture? Scripture says that truth is one. If we have disagreements about Scripture, the problem is that one or both are wrong. This is along the same line as the fallacy Richard Bauckman perpetrates on page 254 in the article, "A Story through Women’s Eyes." There Bauckman refers to "recent feminist interpretation of the Bible." (More on that upcoming.) Here's the rub: if we have a feminist interpretation, could we not also have a Nazi interpretation? Or Democrat? Or Republican? Or Socialist? Or atheist? Or...Or...Or...

In a section of her article called "Are God and the Bible biased?" Powell informs us the Bible is not biased. (Whew, I was worried.) Her argument goes like this: The Bible has all sorts of stories that pay much more attention to men than to women and put men in charge of a lot of stuff. This is bad. However, Powell does approve of God because (as it turns out) these are just stories about how things were, and not an approval of this state of affairs. In other words, narrative is not prescriptive. It does not prescribe behavior or belief.

However, in the same section she notices that women in spiritual leadership roles of prophetess and judge are mentioned. Here, however, narrative is to be taken as prescriptive. It seems that narrative that is not in favor of her point is not prescriptive, but narrative that seems to make her point is. Is she that stupid or does she hope we are?

As with much that Powell does, this is half true. History is often just a story about what happened. But not always. There are two reasons to take history as doctrine or commandment:

First, does other Scripture make a direct commandment or a direct statement of doctrine or ethics that agrees with the seeming implication(s) of the story?

Second, does something in the story logically require that the implication(s) of the story be taken as truly biblical doctrine or ethics?

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," then you have a story with ethical or doctrinal content that is to be taken as true. Paul demonstrates this when he asserts the headship of man based on the Genesis story. Paul’s opinion in I Timothy 2 says that women are to be submissive and quiet in church. So that meets the first criterion listed above. And his reason is the creation order. So that meets the second criterion.

Another glaring contradiction occurs when she says this about the patriarchal nature of spiritual leadership under the Old Covenant:

....There is no divine mandate for it. Women were excluded from the Old Testament Priesthood, but so were many men!"

Huummm....No mandate for male leadership, but women were excluded from God’s priesthood? So just where did the mandate come from? Exodus, if I recall. And did I detect a nanner, nanner, nanner in that last little clause, "but so were many men!"? I think probably so. Her exclamation point after "so were many men" must mean something. It seems Powell has shown the source of her interpretative proclivities.

Finally, on page 90 she writes this about Paul’s writings on the subject in the NT:

In the New Testament Letters there is every indication that any restrictions on women apply within a specific culture and context. Where the particular details of a 1st-century situation differ from ours, it is the principle behind the teaching which is properly binding for all time. Thus, when Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or have authority over men, he is addressing a particular problem of false teaching and wrongful authority in Ephesus. In such a context the women were to stop what they were doing wrong.

This is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt. Let’s look at it on a line-by-line basis.

CP (Claire Powell): In the New Testament letters there is every indication that any restrictions on women apply within a specific culture and context.

ANSWER: So name one of those indications. Paul gave reasons that had to do with creation order, not culture or specific situations. I Corinthians 11: 7-9 says, "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." And I Timothy 2 : 12-14 says,"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Of course, maybe these are not the indications Powell was taking about. She must have been kidding about that "every" part.

CP: Thus, when Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or have authority over men, he is addressing a particular problem of false teaching and wrongful authority in Ephesus.

ANSWER: Fine, except that false teaching is not even mentioned in the passage. Wrongful authority is and creation order is.

CP: In such a context the women were to stop what they were doing wrong.

ANSWER: Yes, stop teaching and taking authority over men, like Paul commanded.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.