Eden Extremes

            Enticed by Eden has been extraordinarily plain and blunt about many of the ways that modern Christians have interpreted the first book and first couple of the Bible.  Adam and Eve are not only seen as the first people, but the first people to experience romance.  From their example, evangelical Christians have attempted to recreate this first relationship in a myriad of ways.  From the courtship fad, to eschewing dating, then turning to online dating and the corporations that claim to be able to find the perfect mate for you (or at least someone compatible enough that a marriage can be muddled through, love being an unnecessary factor), and to Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD). 

The range in interpretation is fascinating.  Both extremes of treating women are present, from seeing wives and daughters as princesses to be cared for and doted upon, to CDD which meets nearly every legal marker of physical abuse.  When examined on a surface level, the clear ‘better’ way is treating women like princesses.  However, this is, while not as clearly abusive, still harmful to the women that it targets.  They are encouraged not to explore their own interests or educations, instead, staying home to learn to worship their fathers and their future husbands (who are chosen for them).  Marriage offers them no more freedom; married women are then expected to pop out babies as soon as possible, and teach their own daughters not to chafe under restriction.

Though the interpretation of Adam, Eve, and Eden covers an enormous range in the evangelical Christian community, neither extreme of interpretation is optimal for women.  Either they are set on pedestals and required to bear children as fast as possible, or they face scheduled physical abuse in order to keep them submissive and ‘happy’ in their marriages.  Though these two are not the only options out there for evangelical Christian women (as seen by the women on ChristianCafe who stand up for feminism) they are real options, and real dangers for women in the community. 

Sex or Celibacy?

Enticed by Eden shows its audience the number of different interpretations people use of Genesis 1-3 in order to justify their actions concerning bible school, marriages, relationships, and sex lives. In chapter three, religious figures talk about their personal feelings with sex and the Bible and how others have responded. Specifically, Kelley has written blogs, written a book, emails, and posts pictures about her sex life and helps other Christian women follow in her footsteps. Chapter one talks about staying celibate until marriage. My concern is how it is preached so much to remain celibate until marriage... And then dramatically change to being submissive women and dominating men in order to stay in God's good graces. There seems to be no middle ground between Christians praising celibacy and then switching whole heartedly into nearly sexually abusive relationships with their soul mates. How else can Genesis 1-3 be misconstrued to make guidelines for sexual behavior among teenagers and newlyweds?

Online Princess

In reading the book Enticed by Eden both Linda S. Schearing and Valarie H. Ziegler tell of the different views on the story of Adam and Eve. In the first chapter, they give an outline to how a girl needs to be raised in order to be a good Christian and remain pure. Having a strong father-daughter relationship will always benefit the morals instilled into the daughter from an early age. Also training these girls to be Princesses is another way to instill their purity. Parents are supposed to prepare these girls for their future Prince Charming but learning the secrets to beauty and skin care. The one hiccup with this ideology is that the girls are not allowed to actively seek out dates or ask a male out on one. That responsibility rests with the man. The woman is to wait until the ‘perfect’ man approaches her but conservative evangelicals say that dating is not allowed.  

Now there are online dating. The funny thing about these dating websites is that in a way, when the women signs up they are seeking out a man. How are these women still being true conservative Christians if they are breaking this one rule? These websites taint the people that use them. For instance, eHarmony was founded by an evangelical Christian for other Christians to find their true loves. Over time, he has abandoned these original beliefs and has developed this site so that it no longer applies to his own religious group. I understand why people would use this form of media to find a relationship in today’s society. However, if the women would just seek out relationships on their own, they would have an easier time.

Shieldmaidens for Christ

In their book Enticed by Eden, Linda Schearing and Valarie Ziegler explore gender relations in the conservative evangelical tradition, including the role women are expected to play as subservient helpers to men. Schearing and Ziegler use the metaphor that these women, both daughters and wives, are “weapons in [men’s] battle to transform American society into a realm of exclusive male privilege and power” (33). An interesting analogy, to be sure, and perhaps one which we can elaborate on in an attempt to better understand the role these women play. The logical extension of this metaphor is to ask what weapon these women function as, and to me, the answer seems to be the shield.

While extensively comparing conservative evangelical women to weaponry may get silly quickly, the idea of the women in this community as points of defence is not so far fetched. These women play a major role as transmitters of culture, particularly because as wives they will be encouraged to stay home and raise children. Therefore, protection from the encroachment of modern immorality on the evangelical community relies heavily on how these women interact with and socialize their children. The father may be the head of the biblical household, but if his wife does not agree with him theologically, it will show in her sway over the children.

The community’s preoccupation with the influence of mainstream western culture on its members is a kind of boundary concern for the group in which women also play a part. Women function as both marriage candidates and temptations within the community, and as such they could make or break the line of defence against secular immorality. Furthermore, they could do considerable damage to the community if they decided to rebel against its teachings. Thus, women’s willing acceptance of the doctrine of gracious submission reinforces the messages of the community by shoring up a potential weak spot (that is, women themselves) in the group’s defences. If the subservient party happily accepts its role, then the movement gains strength.

Therefore, by handing over their independence in exchange for biblical womanhood, these ladies really are helping to protect the community. They shield it from outside influence starting in individual homes and extending throughout the church by way of their sincere acceptance of doctrines on gender hierarchy. In short, they become tools, weapons even, in a men’s fight to ensure the power of biblical manhood over the conservative community.

Christian Destructive Discipline

Overall, Enticed by Eden, was extremely eye opening on how modern society misinterprets the creation story in the Bible. From sexual images of Adam and Eve to abusing misogynistic images of Adam, authors Linda S. Schearing and Valarie H. Ziegler, reveal the ridiculous and frightening understandings of the creation story in Genesis. I was first shocked by the San Antonio organization, Vision Forum, but the most startling aspect that was revealed in this book was the Christian Domestic Discipline “movement”.

According to the Christian Domestic Discipline website, “domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking” and is set up “according to Biblical standards”. They defend their argument through passages like Ephesians, Titus, Acts and Proverbs. The verses the website provides nowhere say that the husband can harm the wife—they only assert that the husband must be the head of the household. Here is leading example of how people completely contort the meaning of those verses. Therefore, the CDD provides no justification of why husbands can beat their wife.

    I was roaming around their website and ran into an article called “How to Discipline

Your Wife, When the Unpleasant is Unavoidable”. To understand the severity of the article, here is the passage explaining how to “Rebuke and Lash” your wife: “This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically. When administering physical discipline, take caution not to deliver the lashes anywhere but the buttocks. The first attempt at this punishment should only be delivered by hand so you can get an idea of how many lashings are needed. The best position will be for you to sit at the end of a bed or on a chair (with no arms) and have her lay across your lap. She can also bend over a bed with arms tucked under her chest and your left hand on the small of her back. If a strap (belt) is to be implemented watch that each stoke falls directly on the buttocks and not higher. EDITOR'S NOTE: When using the hand, or a small, short implement, such as a switch or small "hairbrush"-type paddle, over-the-knee positioning can work quite well. A fearful wife may begin crying or pleading and find it difficult to remain still. Reassure her. of your intent and love (yes this will hurt, that is why it is a punishment) then instruct her to be still. Remind her that she is not in control of this discipline. You should continue the lashing through her tears and pleas for you to stop, until you are certain the message was received. This will insure her remorse and therefore stop the undesirable behavior. A sound lashing is five to ten strokes with your hand, or three to five strokes with a strap; some wives need more. To avoid brusing do not strike the same area in repetition. Gauge your decision to proceed based on your wife's readiness to repent.” (You will notice that the author of this article spelt bruising incorrectly). According to the West Virginia Code of State, “physical abuse is the use of physical force, body posture or gesture or body movement that inflicts or threatens to inflict pain on a client. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to: unnecessary use of physical restraint; use of unnecessary force in holding or restraining a client; improper use of physical or mechanical restraints; use of seclusion without proper orders or cause; slapping, kicking, hitting, pushing, shoving, choking, hair pulling, biting, etc.; inappropriate horseplay; raising a hand or shaking a fist at a client, crowding or moving into a client's personal space; intentional inflicting of pain; punitive measures of any kind, including the use of corporal punishment, withholding meals for punitive reasons, inappropriate removal from treatment programs, restricting communication, or withdrawal of rights or privileges; or physical sexual abuse, i.e., any physical or provocative advance such as caressing or fondling, sexual intercourse, etc.” W. Va. CSR § 64-59-3. 

Therefore, what the men of CDD are doing is considered physical abuse and is not permitted by the law. Most importantly, there is no evidence that the Bible supports physical harm of women. Marriage is sacred in the Bible and states in Colossians 3:19, “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them”. The CDD is a extreme example of how people misinterpret and distort the Creation story. Although the other examples are not as physically detrimental, it is evident in the book Enticed by Eden that the misinterpretation of authoritative Biblical stories can be harmful to modern society.

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/how_to_discipline.html

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-abuse/

Early American's Use of the Bible

To me, a common theme in this week's readings is early Americans looking to the Bible for corroboration and justification. One reading stated that most likely the Geneva Bible was the first English translation in America, popular precisely because it contains annotations and explanations, which speaks to their desire for comprehension, but comprehension from and for their specific point of view. The creation of a Woman's Bible is another example of the exact same goal, to take a text and spin it to your point of view. I doubt they viewed what they were doing as 'spin', but I would argue it most certainly was.

For many early Americans, the departure from Europe was spurred by religious beliefs, and if the Bible supports your decision, that's highly appealing. The use of religious texts as support for political or social change is common, is occurring in this current presidential election, and I think a main factor for the Bible in early America.

Fixing the Bible

The Bible is full of “contradictions, false logistics—doesn’t make sense,” says River Tam from Joss Whedon’s Firefly. According to Stephen Stein in “America’s Bibles: Canon, Commentary, and Community,” the most popular method of dealing with the faults and moral or intellectual offenses of scriptural texts is to explain them away or simply ignore them and focus on the agreeable sections of the canon. Jefferson’s Bible illustrates another strategy of dealing with these difficulties—cutting them out to deal only with “the human side of Jesus and his role as a teacher of ethics” (180). But even after ignoring and editing these issues, the question remains: Do these reactions make sense? Can we fix the Bible?

In episode four of the series Firefly, the brilliant but troubled River Tam gets her hands on Shepard Book’s Bible. Upon reading it, she recognizes fallacies and contradictions in the text. For example, she concludes that “Noah’s arc is a problem…. We’ll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal onto the same boat.” She believes the Bible to be broken and sets about fixing it. In response to River’s red markings and tearing of pages, the preacher is understandably alarmed. “You don’t fix the Bible,” he says. “It’s not about making sense. It’s about believing in something…. It’s about faith.”

The responses of River and Shepard Book to the inaccuracies of the Bible seem to illustrate the reactions of many other readers—ignoring or revising the problem spots to fit their needs. The pages that River tears out of the Bible and the logic she attempts to apply to its problems relates to Jefferson’s rationalism in the creation of his Bible. But even with this rational approach, sections are removed from the text to make it make sense or to establish a particular focus so that the revision also discounts and removes elements of the text. And while the Bible clearly holds great importance to many people, Shepard Book’s seemingly blind faith may not be the best approach to the issue of Biblical inconsistencies either. Rather, the Bible should be considered holistically, acknowledging the difficulty of interpreting sections and exploring the reasons for the contradictions without explaining them away and ignoring them or trying to rationalize them with reality.

The Bible in America

The transition of the bible into the America’s is an interesting one. No one really thinks about how the bible was assimilated into the New World because we have been exposed to the Bible for centuries; that and with the amount of religious history in the United States, no one takes into account that we could have ever had difficulties with acquiring Bibles. There are two things that are bothering me about our history of the bible. In the reading In the Beginning: The King James Bible in America, McGrath notes that “the first English bible to be brought to the New World was the Geneva Bible” (293). I found this interesting since settlers didn’t arrive in the Americas until 1607, but the Geneva Bible was claimed to be too radical for the church in 1568. Did they take those bibles with them because that’s what they could afford?

Another hiccup I have is with Robert Aitken. This man “did not wait for congressional approval before” he produced the first English Bible in America (297). I understand that since their trade with Europe was cut off because of the war and they had no way of importing any bibles, that the people were desperate to get more bibles. However, not only did Aitken go through with printing the King James Bible without permission, he went ahead and changed it by omitting the Apocrypha in the original bible. If he had gained consent from either the church or the government officials, I would probably not feel so bad about his actions, but as it stands even though he took the back ways of fulfilling his own ambition he was eventually given permission to continue making copies of the bible.

What women do not learn in Bible study.

Once I sat in a circle on the floor with other women, bibles, and warm cups of tea. It was a women's only bible study that offered a humble and close connection between other women and scripture. We read the writings of Paul one week. 1 Timothy 2 verse 11-15 raised much confusion, and the bible study leaders were quick to offer apologetic musings about the time this was written. Nothing they said made me feel any comfort over how this was still apart of the book we were instructed to turn to for comfort and clarity.

Women poets in America created their own comfort by writing poems using biblical stories, and with the rise of competitive Protestantism, biblical interpretations were growing in number. Elizabeth Cady Stanton published a then radical feminist interpretation of the bible. This publication was appropriately named The Women's Bible, and it includes lengthy commentary from Stanton.

Her commentary for 1 Timothy verses 11-15 explains Paul’s relationship with Timothy as well as condemns what Paul says about women as tyrannical and includes an argument about the under-appreciated teaching skills many women have. She further argues that Paul was not “inspired by infinite wisdom in his utterance.”(pg. 163 Woman’s Bible) She quotes another writing of Paul Galatians 3 verse 28 “ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor Free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” and is perplexed at the inconsistency of Paul. Although he had inclusive ideas about salvation through Jesus, these ideas did not transcend to hierarchical church organization and to the pew.

Stanton’s Women’s Bible is just one of many examples of new biblical interpretation that arose during the proliferation of Protestantism in early America. This rise caused many to further question claims of singular religious authority.  The poems of Sigourney and Howe are just another chapter in the history of the recreation of the bible. This time in Christian history exemplifies the ability to use the bible, a book that had a tremendous amount of authority to many people, to support a plethora of agendas.

Stanton’s bible was not well received when it was published, even the National American Women’s Suffrage Association rejected it, but its safe to say that a majority of women now would agree with many of Stanton’s views. Despite this, many women still open bibles seeking divinely inspired wisdom, and these bibles still include the writings of a ill inspired man who was clueless about the potential women held within them.

Is Christianity still strong in America? 

                    From readings you clearly see how America was built under a very strong influence of Christian religion, the fact that European immigrants traveled all the way to North America so they could have the freedom to practice their religion, and how this then led to a high demand of the King James Bible from Europe to North America, clearly shows that extent of how strong their faith in Christianity was.

                 However when you look at America now, one wonders what happened to Christianity in America? What happened to the normal way of thinking that God came first? One article on the New York Times I read a while back, suggested that America is simply Europe on a 50-year delay, most churches will be museums before your grandchild reaches adulthood. I believe this to be true, because even the people who proclaim themselves as Christians have little in terms of lifestyle and conduct to distinguish a Christian from and a non-Christian.

                   Furthermore we live in a world where the word “Christian” means a million different things to a million different people. Therefore, an individual claiming to be Christian can be misinterprets as being Homophobic, Conservative, Anti-Science and sexist, even though these descriptions may be completely inaccurate. At the same time some Christian groups reinforce negative perception through campaigns lobbying, public comments and actions, making it harder to break down the preconceived stereotyped that the media continues to associate with Jesus. Thus preconceived notions of what a Christian is, is probably one of the reasons Christianity in America is failing.

One question to leave y’all with is do you think the decline in Christianity is a good thing or not?

Retranslation- good or bad?

Throughout what comparatively little experience I have in studying the history and evolution of the bible, one immensely frustrating question has been lurking in the back of my mind. Why, after learning about the extensive time and effort people have put into trying to assemble a book that has the true messages and teachings of God, would someone wish to purposely go and change such sacred text to fulfill their own personal, political, or reformative desires? Think about it; a thousand years from now, someone may find a misshapen interpretation of the bible popular today and wonder about its purpose and significance, and why it opposes so many other versions found (the same way we may think about a less known scripture, or even those of the Gospels). In the past, scribes would rewrite stories of ancient times for nothing more than practice, or change the original stories to sound more interesting for nothing more than the sake of entertainment. Constantine was able to influence the bible simply because he had power and an opinion. Later, in the formation of early America, after the invention of the printing press let English bibles become more accessible, people took the direct teachings of the KJB and ran with it; anyone had the ability to use or abuse the authority of the scriptural texts as they saw fit. Now, once again, we see people rewriting the bible to bring to light the divine jurisdiction their own opinion or political stance has, when in reality scripture can be twisted to approve of any argument. We see evidence of this today in works such as Jefferson’s Bible, the African American conjurational canon, the Woman’s Bible, and even in translations that occurred through the formation of different denominations, including but not limited to The Book of Mormon.  

However, I would like to take a moment to play devil’s advocate. Perhaps to some people this view may not be seen as such, but to me it is. For as long as I have known that people of the past and present change, reshape, and retranslate the bible for any reason, I have viewed this as being a bad thing. Why go about fixing something that isn’t broken? On the other hand, I have to think about all of the knowledge of past history and culture available today that was gained through close analysis and contrasting viewpoints of holy scriptures of the past. Scribes may have made mistakes and mistranslations in their copies, yes, but that means there were more copies likely to survive and pass throughout time, and evidence of lost culture embedded in their more dramatic writings come to the surface. Constantine may not have bade the best decisions, however we have learned just how much power leaders of his time period truly had. Today, scripture is also changing along with our basic humanistic beliefs as a culture; the bible is literally a reflection of the significant issues and viewpoints prominent today. Another question pops into my head; yes, the bible is originally a literal embodiment of the word of God, but, for those of us who identify with the belief, are we not supposed to fill our ever changing lives with the teachings and promises of God’s word anyways? As our lives change, and new problems arise, what is so wrong with reinterpreting the bible to help teach others the lessons of Christ? In a thousand years, people may be struggling to understand the many biblical interpretations that we now have accepted today. However, they will also have something possibly just as valuable; a piece of our then probably lost culture, and a peek into the values, arguments, and cultural norms of our society today.

Re-Forming Canon

            As we have discussed in class prior, the subject of canon is an extremely complicated one, and it is often defined differently for different people.  Canon does not seem to be a real thing, the more and more we talk about it, and the more I have learned about it.  The development of the printing press and mass-produced texts have certainly aided in the solidification of the text that we now know as the Bible, but this solidification does not mean that the Biblical Canon has become immovably fixed. The canon has been broadened more than once after the printed versions of the Bible began circulating.  Notably, in America, where two new branches and texts have been produced.  These new groups, Mormons and the followers of the teachings of Christian Science, each have their own text, one as a replacement for the Bible, the other as an extra-biblical guide to the text.

            Though The Book of Mormon is not an addition to the canon, it relies heavily upon the text of the Christian Bible, and is singularly focused upon Jesus.  This text seems to me to be much like some of the apocrypha; it does not tell the same tales as the text of the Canon Bible, but it is heavily influenced by and refers to those texts in many places.

            Mary Baker Eddy’s text Health and Science is a guide of sorts to reading the Bible.  This text seems to be not unlike the Bible with notes that circulated heavily around the reformation.  The notes, or guide in this case, are the focus as much as the actual text.

            When there are cases like these, with texts supplementing and replacing the Canonical Bible text, the idea that it is a closed, fixed, canon washes away.  The Canon is canon to those who follow it, but it is not a universally finished piece.  Instead, it is more open scripture, to be taken in whatever way that suits its readers best.

Destructive power of the canon

In our readings this week, the canon was explored in a similar yet different light. Stein wrote about how the desire to control the canon not only limits to the area of authors, translators, political figures, but also publication firms. In order to boost sales, there is a growing number of niche bibles targeted towards different denominations and demographic communities. Each subtle change in the prose and wording, can lead to a drastic change in interpretation. The question I would like to address is if it is ethical for publications to have the power to alter the meaning of the bible for selfish reasons?

The Jefferson bible piqued my interest in its simplicity. Jefferson stripped away much of the prose and language of the tradition scriptures and really only highlighted the main plot of the biblical stories. While I wished many of my readings would look like that, I also recognize that biblical verses were meant to be lyrical given the low literacy rate. In his act of simplifying the Bible, he also took away important traditions which the Bible was based upon.

I am conflicted in the way some feminist argue for the Bible to change. I do understand the cultural significance of the Bible to many communities, but I also see the need for more women recognition in the scriptures. Stanton takes on an interesting point in her call for revision of the scriptures to be more inclusive. As a religion that is meant to unite, the Bible definitely draws a deep divide between the sexes.  

Femininity in Progression

         As a Christian woman, I have read plenty of books, magazines, and articles focused directly on women in the Bible and the way in which they are often portrayed in a negative light or not given nearly enough attention that they deserve. Though I once believed this literature was created in light of the fight for women's rights in the twenty-first century, the articles assigned for today's readings have shown me that the fight for feminism began centuries ago! In a time where women were almost lawfully subordinate to men and held little-to-no power at all, women were still fighting for equality and approached it by increasing the importance and knowledge of Biblical women. Though the push for gender equality is typically studied sociologically, I believe it would be interesting to combine religious studies and sociology. 
         "Women's Bibles" by Shira Wolosky discusses the way women were using the Bible to fight for equality. These women would write poetry with Biblical stories and creatively write exegesis' that would portray women in a better light than they are portrayed in the traditional canon. It is apparent that the women of Early America wanted men to believe women were powerful and equal, so they in turn would believe they themselves were powerful and equal. This relation of convincing others of their status so they will view women differently would fall under "reflected appraisals," often cited by sociologist Cooley, because they describe a person's perception of how others see and evaluate him or her. Furthermore, if others see women in a good light (maybe because their Bible instructs them to), the women will feel more powerful and the cycle continues. 
         More than the reason women were writing about gender equality, the way they went about it can also be analyzed sociologically. Women in Early America were to be homely, reserved, subordinate, quiet, and gentle so expressing their concerns with the religious text would have seemed impossible. While many women genuinely wanted to help change the view of women in the Bible, their role in society prevented them from doing so. Women who wrote poetry about Biblical works were presenting themselves as quiet, humble, poetry writers while their "backstage self" had different purposes for their work. Erving Goffman describes the presentation of self as a dramaturgical production of your everyday life. In this case, the women show their "front stage" self as poets, while their "back stage self" is a feminist fighting for equality. 
         Though we are over 100 years from the creation of the Women's Bible, gender equality is still not achieved and women are still unable to hold positions in most religions. When did the fight for equality stop having Biblical input and how do modern attempts at change help or hurt the process of becoming more equal? Because the attempts at traditional forms of activism can be analyzed sociologically, would understanding them in this light help future forms of activism? 

Influential Bible

In Shira Wolosky’s article “Women’s Bibles: Biblical Interpretation in Nineteenth-Century American Women’s Poetry”, she examines the complex way in which biblical interpretation can both reassert conservative tradition and simultaneously protest it. Instead of just throwing the bible out, people try to rework the bible in a way that aligns with their social and political agenda. This practice speaks to the undeniably influential place the bible holds in American culture. By continuing the conversation surrounding the bible, its importance is reaffirmed.

At this point, there isn’t a question about whether the bible is influential or important in our society. We’ve seen the bible invoked in politics and reimagined in many different mediums. The wide variety of interpretations people put forth and how these interpretations are used in furthering different ideologies is very interesting. People with significantly different beliefs use the same text as a source for their convictions. It seems to me that this discrepancy points to the complexities and contradictions within the text itself. The bible does not have one unified message, so it makes sense that those who read it will draw different conclusions from the text.

Because the bible lacks a singular message, it is natural for people to try and simplify things to support an overarching theme of their choice. I am reminded of a post from earlier this semester on reinventingthebible.com that displayed a graphic titled “Bible Emergency Numbers”. In this graphic a scenario is presented and solved with a bible verse. For example, “when you feel down and out” you should read Romans 8:31-39. To whoever created this graphic, the bible serves as a source for advice. This simplistic approach to the bible diminishes what the bible is in its entirety to what an individual wants it to be.