People's Problems with Personal Purity

I do not typically consider myself an outspoken feminist activist. Do I believe men and women should be considered equally in all aspects-yes. However, you will rarely see me outwardly rant to someone about it. This post is one of those rare exceptions. Schearing and Ziegler have some good points that they bring to the table. I agree with, probably out of my own biased personal experience, that men struggle with and have a big sex drive, while women tend to be more emotional creatures. This is not to say that men are stone cold and women hate sex- It just seems like genders have their own struggles in this area. I cannot conform to any notion, because of this reason or really any reason for that matter, that women are designed to entirely submit to their husbands, or to any prominent male figure in their lives. Growing up with a solid religious background, I am familiar with the notion of having an intimate, loving relationship with Jesus, no matter what gender you are. Having Jesus as the most prominent figure in your life is the main goal to consistently keep in your life as a Christian. However, I have trouble accepting the idea that it is a woman’s role to submit to men in her life. I believe that people can be submissive or perhaps more passive by nature- not by gender or by supposed divine ruling.

Reading through Schearing and Ziegler’s book, I found the section about princess the most personally intriguing, and also probably the most frustrating. I’m a daddy’s girl. I’ll admit it. I have been shaped and influenced by the teachings and examples set out for me by my dad. I also love the fact that I share many interests with him, such as a love of the outdoors, science fiction, and even physical traits such as our eyes. However, none of the things I claim to share with my father are born out of a twisted religious ideal that to be a good little Christian girl I have to please him, and then afterwards my husband, at every turn. There is no pressure to impress or submit to the wishes of my father. In fact, I think he would hate that. If you would ask him today, I believe he would wish for me to grow into an independent, strong willed, sharp minded individual; not some submissive ready-to-please doll. Growing up, my dad took me out camping and hiking, to museums and state parks. He taught me about Science fiction films and nature. Setting a table and other such stereotypical ‘princess’ work was never an interest to me. Proper etiquette was learned and expected, as it should be for any good mannered individual of either gender, however this was never emphasized as a perfected life necessity for being a female in my household. I recognize myself as lucky because I have a father who cares more about my head and my heart than my social and hierarchic standing.

 All of the princess programs for little girls mentioned in the book make me sad. It is almost like brainwashing these little girls to associate their purity with material reward before they are even going the struggle of sexual temptation. Positive reinforcement towards keeping your virginity is followed by something even more scarring; negative social repercussions of losing it. Girls who go through this childhood process of being praised for their purity become the label- they are proud and unique because of it. Perhaps they even see themselves on a level other than their sinful peers. Say they have sex before marriage- What would their parents do? What would people at church think or say? Could I ever go back? And probably the scariest one of all- Does God hate me now? In the book, Harris talks about how saving sex for marriage made the entire process more enjoyable for him and his wife. However, I know this not always to be the case. Women who grow up with this ‘Jesus’ Princess’ label on their foreheads can be persuaded so much into keeping their purity that even after marriage sex feels morally wrong and socially unacceptable. If you grow up proud and known for you unique pureness, and all of a sudden after a few vows lose this part of yourself forever, what does your new label become?

Stretching the Story

In Enticed by Eden: How Western Culture Uses, Confuses, (and Sometimes Abuses) Adam and Eve, Linda S. Schearing and Valarie H. Ziegler discuss both how conservative Christians recreate the story of Adam and Eve and how the secular world reuses the story in a range of different ways. Both of these groups take the Adam and Eve narrative and interpret it in a way that serves their own purposes.

From the beginning of the book, Schearing and Ziegler show how conservative Christians are influenced by the reality of living in our modern culture. I found it very interesting how ideals based in non-biblical narratives were transferred into their glorified concept of Adam and Eve. In their conclusion, Schearing and Ziegler assess that “In their zeal to recreate Eden, conservative evangelicals have explicated Scripture through cultural constructs that have nothing to do with the Bible and in doing so have become captives to those constructs”(153). “Prince Charming” is nowhere to be found in the Bible, yet themes from this extra-biblical narrative is integrated into the Adam and Eve narrative.

After reading this book, I had to go back and read Genesis 1-3. Reading so many interpretations, I needed to return to the text that these different ideas were drawing from. Having reread it, I think that there is enough vagueness in the Adam and Eve narrative that ultimately you can read your own ideas into it. Though these conservative Christian views of Adam and Eve definitely stretch the story, I can see how they find these stretches to not be stretches at all.  Inserting other cultural narratives into the Adam and Eve story seems to come naturally because of how sparse the account is. You don’t know about Adam and Eve’s relationship, which created a need for conservative Christians to fill in this blank. Because the Bible states Adam and Eve were created for each other, conservative Christians make a leap to what this creation means in Adam and Eve’s relationship and consequently, what it means for relationships between husbands and wives today. These stretches are without a doubt influential, and the idea that conservative Christians have of Adam and Eve seems in many ways disconnected from the original text. As Schearing and Ziegler aptly described, they are captives to extra-biblical cultural constructs.

Women Being Submissive

         From the reading of enticed by Eden, made me think of the idea of prince charming, growing up as a girl and watching all these Cinderella and sleeping beauty movies , it really does intercept the idea of one day your price charming is going to come and you will get married and live happily ever after. This is what Hollywood/Walt Disney installs on women from a young age. Looking back now to Cinderella now that I am a grown woman and can think more straight, marriage was viewed as a sense of security and escape from one’s family. The idea that a bunch of single women attended and mingled with the prince in a grand ball,  shows that the man can do anything he wants with all the single girls until he meets his future princess. On the other hand women should patiently wait for their prince.

         It’s similar with Elisabeth Elliot idea of what a woman should be and do, where she agrees that women should be submissive to women, and should follow the man and Genesis approves this. I definitely do not agree with this, I think in scripture, every creature is called to submit to God, usually in different ways. Church members submit to faithful pastors, children are to submit to parents, we all submit to the governing authorities.  The Bible does state wives are called to their husbands, but I don’t think that is the point, too often in our culture, women are pressured to submit to men a category. This is why women’s value in the society we live in is often defined as sexual attractiveness and availability.

             That’s why so many girls and women are destroyed by a patriarchy that demands the dignity and glory of what it means to be a women. I think that both husband and wife to submit to each other, this means being faithful and no one else. Let’s take an example Eve’s submission to the Serpent’s word meant she refused to submit to God’s.

Why Do Some Still Think that the Bible is Sexist?

Enticed by Eden spends significant time and resources discussing the negative implications of a "strict" interpretation of Genesis 1-3, along with other passages found in the bible: I'm using "strict" as a word for an interpretation we typically consider more conservative, or literal. Citing instances of how the Bible has been used to suppress women -- as seen in instances where the Bible is used to push women into only the traditional housewife job -- it seems clear that more than a handful of people had perverted these specific passages (or they haven't, and the Bible actually does support ideas that culturally we would describe as sexist).

While one could spend a career discussing whether the Bible actually is sexist or if it is just misinterpreted by some, I found myself more drawn to a different concept: a concept that can be found in Enticed by Eden, but not out right addressed. It's a simple idea: why? Why in a modern, significantly more liberal 21st century world, is this one concept still heavily shown in some Christian circles? There are plenty of "laws" or expectations found in the Bible that have somewhat died out, or that very few (>1%) actually still follow. So why are the passages that promote sexism still so strong? If the answer is simply that there are more passages that promote sexism in the Bible, then why aren't other laws that are mentioned multiple times equally as prevalent? Genesis, similar to any other book, can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. That doesn't answer, however, why this particular interpretation has such a stranglehold on the way (clearly, according to Enticed by Eden) that many view the Book of Genesis.

Confusing the Message

As several of my classmates have pointed out thus far, the story of Adam and Eve has been influential in starkly contrasting opinions on gender, sex, and sexuality. From groups like the CDD using Biblical passages to support gendered violence, to sexualized marketing created for a myriad of products, the Bible's first celeb couple is constantly employed as corroboration. Here's my question, can everyone, or anyone, be right? Basically, was the Biblical story of Adam and Eve originally meant to convey a specific message about marital roles and sexuality, which would mean the original message of the passage would be the 'right' way to think about these topics and others would be wrong. Or, was the story meant to purely focus on the creation of humans and original sin as forbidden (nonsexual) knowledge, meaning the Biblical passage shouldn't be support for arguments about sexuality, etc.

I tend to think that the originally intended message of Adam and Eve's story probably had more to do with gender roles and marital roles than with sex and sexuality, but you could certainly make the argument that they were trying to send other messages as well. Over all, I think most uses of the Adam and Eve story are confusing any original message badly, and it's fascinating to see how each group does it with the utmost assurance.

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?