聖經中對女人的說法

馬丁路德
則說“儘管她們越來越疲乏，由於撫養孩子而消耗自己，這沒有關係；讓她們生育孩
子直到她們死，因為這就是她們存在的目的。”


難道他的母親/老婆/女兒不是女的？！
如果沒有女人，那麽他早就不存在了！！！

花了很久才看完这贴子，很精彩。。谁是谁非，难以知晓，尤其我对宗教的认识就如细菌的脚毛，小之又小。。。

我只知道宗教可算是心灵上的法律，时代的改变，价值观的升降，宗教教训也随着重编。

楼上高手们就象新编旧编历史课题的争论。
或者和政治一样，支持的专找好的写，不好的也修饰一番；反对的自然加强不好的言词。

Martin Luther 毕竟还是人（是吗？），多多少少都会有点痛脚吧？

豬頭

hermitee 于 25-5-2004 17:36  说 :
花了很久才看完这贴子，很精彩。。谁是谁非，难以知晓，尤其我对宗教的认识就如细菌的脚毛，小之又小。。。

我只知道宗教可算是心灵上的法律，时代的改变，价值观的升降，宗教教训也随着重编。

楼上高手们就 ...

那基督教徒就该承认错误啊，可是他们连认错的勇气都没有，一不对劲就"闪人" ，别人当然觉得他们只是要其他人认同基督教徒而已，他们是不需要理会你的疑问。

海神之風

猪头兄，原来我们中华民族祖先信奉外邦神，嗯很好很好。

豬頭

海神之風 于 27-5-2004 07:02  说 :
猪头兄，原来我们中华民族祖先信奉外邦神，嗯很好很好。

谁说的?该不会是那些德高望重的神父的猜测吧

NANAKO

豬頭 于 27-5-2004 08:04 PM  说 :

谁说的?该不会是那些德高望重的神父的猜测吧

不只吧？还有其他的人硬要把他们认为对与是的“东西”塞进来。从他们对历史及文化的了解，真替他们感到遗憾！

Liszt

謙益 于 8-5-2004 09:29 PM  说 :
謝謝大家！！
特別是西湖安静，fcthow，海神，NANAKO，Betty，討論，Liszt等網友的支持，還有藍天夢的高抬貴手讓我們在這裡自由發言．更應該謝謝PeterTan，你不屈不撓的斗爭讓 ...

呵～～呵～～～

我也有份啊！！！惶恐惶恐。。。。

不过最近对宗教论坛也没有什么兴趣了。。。。

都是一样的公式规律：

问题－辩论／证据－不了了之

好闷啊。。。。。（－０－）

还是专注弹钢琴吧。。。。比较单纯纯洁。。。

豬頭

怎么还没有人慷慨解答呢?

豬頭 于 18-6-2004 02:09  说 :
怎么还没有人慷慨解答呢?

呵呵呵，如果站在对方及人性的考量，时间会让你知道答案，用心想想。

豬頭

清风游云 于 18-6-2004 04:21  说 :


呵呵呵，如果站在对方及人性的考量，时间会让你知道答案，用心想想。

咦，你这句话很象是基督教徒最擅用50招理的第32招，就是推卸责任，答不到就叫别人想。

慕容仰

－我對女性神學之管見

／劉詠諄

在二十世紀的今天，女性主義是一個洶湧澎湃的社會潮流，她將會一直如火如荼地發展下去，全球無論是政治、經濟、文化、教育、社會，甚至教會都必須有些因應對策，才能在穩定中求發展。

(從前男性不自覺、“不小心”的把世界交給自己管理，而忽略、輕看了女性對這世界也有重要義務和責任；現在，女性自覺了，男性是否應該主動把管理世界的責任平權分攤？)

早期的女權運動都發生在西方國家，近二三十年來，亞洲地區的女性也不甘落人之後，開始相繼為本國的婦女伸張正義，爭取應有的權益。以台灣目前的教育水準而言，並非沒有研究女性神學的人才，但正如一百年前美國的史旦頓(Elizabeth Cady Stanton )的研究所顯示，許多女性不肯參與婦女神學的原因為：因為她們怕崇高的聲譽及學術成就，可能會因為參加這個在當時(此時亦然)被認為是不尋常的運動而遭損(註一)。畢竟，我們都是吃喝父權主義的釋經學長大的，若提倡女性神學，就必須預備迎接許多不可預測的反彈，以及從四面八方湧來許多不自覺的自家人之猛烈抨擊。

（以前女性自覺需要面對很大的壓力，現在女性自覺已經不是那麼難了，重要的是在攻破男性的人性弱點時，需要使用比男人更高明的策略和智慧；跟男人斗力是沒有用的，那是肌肉發達的男人的強項，跟男人斗EQ吧，這樣女性在爭取自主權時就不會吃虧了。）

然而，台灣天主教卻自1983年開始，陸續有女性反省團體主辦女性自覺研討會，發表並分享女性的觀感與女性神學，為改善台灣兩性平等、相互尊重而努力；基督教方面，近幾年來，長老教會對女性神學的研究與投入則是有目共睹的。

（教會原本就應該比任何團體都要盡快醒覺，全面醒覺，促進更多人的醒覺；我建議各位上MAR HILL FORUM看JOHN RANKIN如何解釋從一開始就揭示男女平等的創世記。在GOOGLE輸入上述兩個名詞就可以了。）

男性亦需要女性神學來解放
社會實況告訴我們：父權主義的作風已不適用於現代社會潮流，無論在家庭、職場，或社交場合中，男性沙文主義只會帶來反面的人際關係，和增加自己與異性相處之壓力，進而造成許多男性被迫處在父權主義與現實景況的矛盾當中，生活倍感壓力，無所適從，這些男性也需要從中被釋放出來，而另一些存有大男人主義思想的男性，其家庭生活亦大多數是不幸福的。因為兩性不平等不但會扭曲了上帝所賦予女性的形象，還會破壞了兩性原有互相尊敬的和諧關係。

（是的，男性也需要在讀聖經時讀到清楚的：“上帝愛女人”的聲音；只有這樣男人才能找到真愛女人的根據和榜樣。）

筆者支持女性神學所主張，兩性都應該回到上帝所造的形象上，兩性都應享有平等、同尊、同榮的位格，彼此相敬、相愛。兩性雖有創造之先後，卻無尊卑之別，猶如父、子、聖靈、有先後之倫理輩份，卻是三而一，享有同尊、同榮的位格，沒有大小、尊卑之別。人若違背了上帝所創造的定律，必自尋煩惱、自討苦吃。香港建道神學院楊克勤教授便如此說﹕「很多男性在父權的宰制之下，受到的侵略不一定比女性低」（註二）。所以，我們可以說，女性神學不單是解放女性，同時也解放了男性。

（讓男女兩性平等、同尊、同榮的先決條件是：男人從此說溫柔的話，做溫柔的事，學習讓自己在溫柔中顯出力量。）

台灣教會急迫需要女性神學
基於以下四個理由，足以說明台灣教會急迫需要屬於自己本土文化的女性神學。

（不止台灣需要女性神學，馬來西亞更是需要，因為教會有太多強人領袖了）

1. 若缺乏兩性平等的觀念，釋經學便不完全

現在我們所接受的釋經學，大多沿襲男性父權主義所預設的主觀立場來詮釋聖經的教義，除了含有當代的特殊處境性和文化差異性之外，亦已偏離聖經原文之原意。筆者以為，聖經的啟示原文是無誤的，釋經學的不完全是由於釋經學者的不完全所致。若以今天的兩性平等平權觀點而論，我們所尊敬的初代教父特土良(Tertullian)和中古世紀的阿奎那(Thomas Aquinas)都算是鄙視女性的神學家(註三)。

那麼，經由他們所詮釋出來的神學觀是標準無誤的嗎？若長期由一群父權主義的男性來主導釋經學，自然會產生傾向父權主義的釋經學，但這也不意味著，從古至今，這些傳統的釋經學都是錯誤的釋經學，因為它還是具有其個別的時代背景，某些具爭議性的基督徒生活的教義之釋經學（非救贖論的教義），它很可能完全適用當代的社會習俗，但並不見得適合繼續應用於現代的社會。因此，教會應該要為這個時代重新詮釋，發展出一套本土化的釋經學。

保羅書信中有某些教導，以當時的情況而言，是合乎聖徒體統的，所以無論是現代女性主義者，抑或是傳統釋經學擁護者都不必再度強解保羅的原意，不必刻意把保羅的某些特殊處境性的教訓套用於現代的處境中，這對誰都是不公平的（對保羅而言也是不公平的）。故筆者以為，我們不必一直停留在研究「是否誤會了保羅的婦女神學」這個論題上，因為這類相關文獻已經夠多了，而且也講得夠清楚了。教會應該更進一步研究發展出新的東西出來，使我們能夠早日進入完全的地步（希伯來書6章1節）。牧長務要學習如何講解聖經給現代人，並正確地領導教會和這時代的百姓邁向下一個世紀。

為了避免女性神學走上男性性別主義的錯誤路線和方式，筆者認為，正確的女性神學不應該僅為了爭取某些神學名詞翻譯上的修正，一切努力均以修正性別歧視的錯誤觀念為終極目標，反而應該幫助兩性回到上帝在創造之初的身份和地位，在有生之年執行上帝所託付的旨意。

2.若不以兩性平等為基礎，講道學便不完全

在處理有關婦女和夫婦的經文上，若沒有健康的兩性平等觀念，就難有健康正確的講道學。特別是老一輩的牧者或曾受過日式教育的牧者，在講台上常發表三、四十年前的兩性觀，令聽眾覺得跟不上時代的腳步，尷尬不已。

常見有關婚姻的教導裡，牧者都喜愛引用以弗所書5章22~33節，這本是好的，然而，美中不足的是，重點都放在「妻子要順服丈夫」這句話上面，未能中肯、公平地來教導夫妻二人。事實上，這段經文有三個值得思考的問題：1.單單靠妻子順服丈夫就能使婚姻幸福嗎？2.丈夫要以捨己的愛來愛妻子重不重要？3.是基督(丈夫)先愛教會(妻子)，為教會捨己？還是教會(妻子)先順服基督(丈夫)，基督(丈夫)才愛教會(妻子)？答案是顯而易見的(參羅5:8)。

單靠妻子的順服並不能建立幸福的婚姻。在父權主義的影響之下，講台較少深入教導丈夫要以基督為教會捨己的愛來愛妻子，在這種「重男輕女」的觀念下所形成的「縱男輕女」式的教導，養成了許多不會用愛來建立家庭的丈夫。

論到兩性關係，務須傳講全面性、整全性的信息，不能斷章取義、厚此薄彼。無論是保羅抑或是彼得，都是先教導妻子之後，接著就教導丈夫，兩人都不是單方面地只要求妻子，畢竟婚姻是要靠雙方努力才能維持的（林前7:33-34）。

3.若缺乏女性經驗的參與，現有的教牧輔導學便不完全

近十年來，外遇問題已嚴重入侵基督徒的家庭，亟需教會加強關注，事先的教育與輔導是相當重要的教牧工作。因為時代變遷迅速，現代人的問題複雜紊亂，兩性關係也已重新定位，若教牧輔導仍建立在父權主義和性別主義的輔導模式之下，就很難真正解決問題。因此，若不重視女性意識、不更新輔導的意識型態和神學基礎，就無法跟上社會的腳步。

而教牧輔導若不加強對男性的教育，縱使是基督化的家庭也會發生外遇問題。事實上，在聖經裡常看到上帝用很多篇幅來斥責對感情不忠、犯姦淫、迷戀外女、休妻的男性（參箴5章；6：20~35；7：~27；瑪2：13~16），教會卻不常引用這些經文來幫助男性，實為可惜！

4.若缺少女性同工的投入，現有的聘用制度便不建全

因為教育的平等與普及，現今台灣兩性的社會經驗與學識，已經難分軒輊。由歷年高普考成績揭曉，女性考取的人數逐漸高於男性便可証明，女性的智慧並不輸給男性。然而，反觀教會事工卻仍對女性存有很多不必要的設限。

在社會上很多營業額在數十億以上，員工數百名以上的大企業中不乏女性主管之時，一個不算大的教會或福音機構卻不能任用女性，理由安在？上帝曾經賜給教會許多優秀的女性人才，教會卻不任用她們，豈不怪哉！


上帝的作為奇妙
馬利亞是基督教第一位勇敢的女性自覺者，因著上帝的呼召，她敢向當時的社會禁忌挑戰，作一個未婚懷孕的女子，負起上帝救贖計劃的重任。我們也很感謝上帝的智慧與幽默，設計了一個奇妙的救恩計劃，使神的兒子耶穌基督成為女人的後裔，揀選女人作為祂第一位重要親密的同工。上帝重用女性的方式與心意，是否隱含著一個未解的奧祕，值得我們深思。

女性神學工作者應謹慎自省，不要再犯男性主義同樣的錯誤，須瞭解兩性的共同點與其獨特性，不歧視男性，不高抬自己，看兩性都合乎中道。而教會研究女性神學也不應只是為教牧事奉的需要，同時也應盡義務教導、解惑、督責社會激進女性主義的偏失。而為了建全神學教育，神學院更應開始教授這門課程，才能領導教會與社會。

（作者為美國聖查理斯大學宗教哲學博士、美國中華歸主神學院教牧學博士候選人，現任路加傳道會中部同工）


附註：

楊克勤《女男之間》，建道神學院出版，p. 20~25。
同上，p.180。
王崇堯《神學家的世界》，p.168。

[ Last edited by 慕容仰 on 25-6-2004 at 03:57 PM ]

慕容仰

《基督教婦女神學--方法論探索》心得分享

作者：rice

書名：《基督教婦女神學--方法論探索》
作者：潘蜜拉‧狄其‧楊（Palmela Dickey Young）原著
陳美玲、朱麗娟譯
出版：台灣基督長老教會總會婦女事工委員會

一：全文架構

前言

1.婦女神學的挑戰暨神學方法
   女性主義對神學的挑戰
   婦女神學家的共識
   神學方法
   本書的結構

2.女性主義的方法論
   嶄新的教導權柄
   折衷的女性主義
   出自基督教傳統的規範

3.以婦女的經驗作為神學的來源與規範
   以婦女的經驗作為神學來源
   以女性經驗作為神學的規範
   女性的經驗與費歐倫沙、路德、羅素

4.基督教傳統在婦女神學中的地位
   以基督徒傳統作為來源
   以基督教傳統作為規範
   基督教傳統應如何成為規範？
   如此規範為何適用於婦女神學

5.基督論與教會論：方法的運用
   基督論
   教會論
   結語

二：關於這本書

       這本書是與《她的歷史》同時出版的，如同序言或作者自己所言：「許多的女性主義者的女性意識，並未受老師所啟發，而是無師自通的。她們的女性意識，首先來自其本身的經驗、或得自別人的論述。我自己亦然，也正如此，我要感謝那些在其神學作品之中，論及她們自身經驗的女性主義者。」這本書可算是一本提供有心在『婦女/女性神學』的研究者的思考方向和方法論，免得有些人苦於有興趣卻不得其門而路的困境。

       在之前曾和大家提過：婦女神學的興起是在60年代末期，到70年代開始有專書出現。這本書中主要提及了3位神學家：費歐倫沙（Fiorenza）、路德（Ruether）、羅素（Russell），她們如何從事婦女神學、並按部就班介紹她們個人所用的神學方法。譯者特別提及這本書的中譯本期待成為一個橋樑的工作，幫助更多人跨越語言的隔閡來一窺婦女神學的究竟，畢竟大部分的書還是以英文為主、不見得就真的讀不懂英文，但畢竟不是我們熟悉的語言、這其實也是研讀神學上的一種貢獻、至少對婦女神學是。很多人談起女性、女性主義、婦女/女性神學便會有一種先入為主的不太好的印象，這個橋樑同時也提供一扇瞭解的門窗。更積極的是：在通過對於整個婦女神學的瞭解和認識後，身在台灣、亞洲的基督徒婦女也可以提出不同見解或方法
，並進而豐富其內涵。

       之前有一篇〈從西方「婦女宗教精神」運動到亞洲基督徒婦女神學的反省〉的摘要就曾經提及不僅應該瞭解整個婦女神學的歷程、也必須瞭解亞洲（至少台灣）的處境，完全地複製或排拒都是在造成研究/研讀的困境。這本書的最大目的就是能與各種想法互相對話，並在神學方法論上將女性的經驗與基督教傳統相互結合。由於作者對於『基督教女性主義』（a Christian feminism）和『基督教婦女神學』（a Christian feminism theology）的結合有著無比樂觀的態度
，她所努力的是致力於基督教傳統、盼望在面對女性主義所提出的問題時，可以盡可能做出最好的說明。

       書中的三位神學家是影響作者極深的學者。她的方法論不盡然與她們相同，但沒有她們三位，也就沒有作者的女性思想。這對我是一個很好的提醒、也想與大家分享，傳統我們的教育或形式風格便是非得完全相同才會稍稍對其致敬意，而比較缺乏對於不同思想、觀念的人表達欣賞之意。在長期閱讀女性的過程中，我越來越學習去看那些和自己不同的人、嘗試去瞭解不同的想法，而盡量先不要有太過情緒的反彈。

       其實這對我也是很困難的功課，事實上、在我研讀女性的過程便是如此。很多人大概都不知道：其實我過去也是個反女性的人，聽到女性主義、女性神學便是一副不屑的表情，並且會想盡辦法來敵對她們。為了敵對、就想深入（敵境）瞭解，然後開始閱讀書籍和資料，就在和書本及一些輔導的對話中有了大翻轉般的轉變。我的成長過程並不真的就受到多大的壓迫（也或許如此、對於一些女性主義者就會反感，覺得她們太過極端了），不過在研讀中卻漸漸發現：不是自身的問題，並不代表問題不存在。

       「有沒有可能身為一個基督徒又是一個女性主義者」，這個疑問至今仍是很值得探討的問題，這本書同時也在分享作者的努力和其中一些可能的方法論。作者也曾經處在兩條路抉擇的困境當中：全盤接受基督教思想or從信仰出走。卻是在追尋的過程中發現、她必須找尋一個位置，一個兼顧政治角度和理智判準的位置。並期待在研究中、無論是基督教或所謂的宗教傳統中都應該接受理性的質疑，並且沒有任何問題是不能問的。作者本身是一個仍然留在教會體制內努力的人，她認為自己可以是個基督徒、又同時是個女性主義者，但她並不認為這是一件容易的事。

       最後、她特別提及：單單神學本身是無法改變女性的命運。這樣的說法不知將會引起多少人的反對，包含男性、也包含女性。但她真正關注的：是對於其他的剖析不可或缺的提醒，以及對於『實踐』路上的強調。並且期待大家在理論和實踐的路上攜手奮進，為的是一個女性的完整人性得以實現的世界！

       這本書是1997年出版，而原文則是在1990年出版。有些人或許會覺得這麼久的書了，是不是還有用？不可否認的是：這近10年來在女性/婦女神學上的發展的確有不少，一些其他的學者的興起；至於女性主義那就更不必說了，那更是蓬勃地發展哩！我們何以要讀這些那麼久以前的書？大家會怎麼想這個問題呢？對我來說、女性的發展的確時時刻刻都在改變，但若論起整個歷史發展，她似乎也只是近百年（甚至50年）不到的較有系統性的發展。

       當然、她所要面對的問題是刻不容緩、也更因此顯出她的急切性和許多人的著急這種著急雖可令人理解、卻不必然真有十分正面的幫助，也不表示可以完全忽略其發展過程中的努力。縱然可以說、過去的環境已然與現在不同，但女性長期面對的問題，頂多可算是程度上的不同、而非本質上的不同，過去的東西/文獻該不該讀這並不是一個很好回答的問題，但至少在我本身的閱讀過程當中、這些過去的神學家、所提出的方法論，截至目前都還有很高的可讀性和應用性。這可能表示了：還有許多的問題是在這麼多年來尚未有太大改變，另一方面也值得我們思考的是：早期的努力、是否即應全然丟棄？

       在我們工作坊當中，只有極少數幾位是所謂「文組」的人，在理工醫農的環境中、我們大概都會比較傾向專注『近年來的發展』，我還記得以前seminar的paper只能找一年半以內的，畢竟在醫學的領域、越新的paper才有越新的東西出現、那個競爭激烈的經驗至今仍是一種提醒。不過轉進神學院這個領域、神學應該比較偏向所謂「人文」的領域，所讀的很多是所謂的『經典』、也就是時間比較久的作品。一些較新的神學發展或聲音，還說不定會被人摒棄哩---這也說不定是幾個廣義的解放神學（拉美解放神學、女性、黑人…）至今仍某個程度無法登上殿堂的原因吧？！---這對我其實是一種提醒、但我卻不知道為何有些人（指的是讀解放神學的那些人）讀到後來，反倒忘了當時讀的時候所遭受到的排擠（多或少的程度不同罷了）、卻反過來將自己領域的歷史發展、所謂舊的東西，亟欲將之揚棄？！以這本書的作者而言、這些早期的神學家的作品和努力，雖不盡然都完全相同或認同，但沒有這些閱讀、也就沒有她的女性思想；對我而言也是如此。曾經在一段有點沮喪的時期中，對於女性神學這個領域的一直不斷的重複覺得十分灰心，會發現在這10年當中所能論述的或提及的好像就是那麼一些，若真是如此、這10多年的努力代表著什麼呢？！

       認同及接受，這是我能想到的答案。我們至今能很輕易地得到一些有關女性神學的資料、甚或談論，這是經過10多年的努力、甚或更久的時間所得來的。包括我們能有這些中文譯本的閱讀，也是之前許多人的努力！換個角度來想：即便目前女性的東西已然成為『顯學』，卻也只在神學書籍中佔一點點的篇幅，這樣的現況、應該是一種更好的提醒和鼓勵---還有更多的努力空間、不是嗎？！有人會覺得我太過樂觀，不過、「沒有努力就沒有可能性」、反之亦然。

       很多時候、我們重視自己所學的領域固然是一定必須要的，但何嘗不也來個自我解嘲（記得：開自己玩笑就好了！），也比較不會往死胡同鑽。尤其在女性的這個領域、不管是女性神學或女性主義，很多其他的聲音、特別是那些聽來令人生氣或討厭的聲音，其實有很多都是種助力（但當然不包含那些情緒性的語言啦…也說不定有，提醒我們不可以也那樣情緒化啦）反倒是那些稱讚的聲音，只要聽一次就好了，不然你就會看到有一隻拿著小三叉、賊賊地笑又露出小尖牙的小不點在你的頭上出現啦，呵呵！

       書中的作者提到一個很重要的觀念、這不一定可以完全說明「婦女神學」的方法論的精髓，但其主要觀念不外乎就是在改變一些既有的想法、判斷、價值觀。比如說：男性長久依賴的「二元論」看法、永遠有一者優於另一者的想法。還有「階級」的觀念：神職人員優於平信徒，基督教優於其他宗教，男高過女…。先不論您對這些觀點是否真的認同，先去想想她所要對抗的究竟是什麼、反對的究竟是什麼。誠然、婦女神學也分有許多不同的看法，也希望大家看到這個或知道這個的時候，不要又落入了：「連婦女自己都在搞分裂」的想法當中，因為不同的看法都有其主要要面對的傳統神學。

       婦女所努力的、便是拒絕任何根植於二元論、階級制的觀念。傳統基督教團體常被指責：非但沒有盡責批判現存的價值觀念，反而為之守護者。基督教裡的好、壞對、錯的標準都與其神學觀點密切相關，而神學觀點也往往影響其倫理觀，這必定跟「人」有密切相關！我們常聽到拉美解放神學、黑人神學…這些所努力和對抗的都是傳統的倫理觀所對人造成的壓迫、而倫理觀與神學息息相關，這些神學都有個共通點是：從觀察到存在有「受壓迫的人」開始去反省，然後建立出來的神學。傳統神學當然會批評，只是、他批評的原因是為了什麼呢？這值得我們好好深思，而任何其他聽到的、看到的，都只可以成為我們的一種參考方向而已。

       這本書的作者還有一個分享：「當我們把女性的關懷點放入基督教的核心議題，並看重女性經驗、致力兩性平權，那麼、我們就是參與了基督教婦女神學的進行。若是神學不嚴肅正視婦女之經驗，而又自稱為『適切的』基督教神學，那麼其宣揚的神學並不可信。但若神學未能包含傳統，那麼有不宜被稱為適切的基督教神學。」所以、我們需要的是平衡，這種平衡是承載著兩個沈重目標，然後我們的任務就是將目標送到目的地。

       上回與朱姐的那次聚會中、news曾經問到：「我們好像從一岸跳下後，一直在找尋那個彼岸，但彼岸在哪裡呢？有時也會想說游回原來的岸上…」覺得朱姐的回答很值得我們思考：『也許我們永遠到不了彼岸，只是一直在這汪洋之中一直游著。』如果我們仍舊一定覺得得看到自己做的努力之後、能有成果的呈現，那麼只有可能氣死自己、永遠覺得不得志罷了。我常覺得、一個人要能很清楚自己，包含自己的stand、也包含自己的限制（自覺的和不自覺的）才能有真正的努力，這當中也就包含了不去打壓別人（或是說、期待自己不要去打壓別人。這些別人、特別指的是一些非走在正統路上的人）。我們在團契常喜歡說：『關懷邊緣人。』說這樣的話的時候、我們的心應該是沈重而祈求上主憐憫的，因為這些邊緣正可能是我們所造成而不自覺。

慕容仰

Which View Is Biblical?

Part Three in a Three-Part Series on Liberation Theology

by Ron Rhodes


The woman is "in all things inferior to the man," said first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.[1] Rabbi Judah, a contemporary of Josephus, said "a man must pronounce three blessings each day: 'Blessed be the Lord who did not make me a heathen; blessed be he who did not make me a woman; blessed be he who did not make me an uneducated person.'"[2]

Jewish Rabbis in the first century were encouraged not to teach or even to speak with women. Jewish wisdom literature tells us that "he that talks much with womankind brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna [hell]."[3] One reason for the avoidance of women was the belief that they could lead men astray: "From garments cometh a moth and from a woman the iniquities of a man" (Ecclus. 42:13). Indeed, men were often viewed as intrinsically better than women, for "better is the iniquity of a man than a woman doing a good turn" (Ecclus. 42:14).[4]

In view of this low status of women, it is not surprising that they enjoyed few legal rights in Jewish society. Women were not even allowed to give evidence in a court of law. Moreover, according to the rabbinic school that followed Rabbi Hillel, a man could legally divorce his wife if she burned his dinner.

It was in this oppressive context that Christianity was born. Many people - both men and women - have hailed Jesus as a feminist because of His elevation of women in a male-chauvinist society. Moreover, Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (NIV) - has been called "the Magna Carta of humanity."[5] Because of the Christian's standing in Christ, it is argued, the subordination of women that was (allegedly) caused by the Fall (Gen. 3) has been replaced with total equality of the sexes in Christ. Any apparent biblical teaching of the need for female submission today is based on misinterpretations by male scholars.

Feminism. To some the word represents liberation and long-awaited justice; to others, divisiveness. Emotions have run feverishly high in the debate over women's rights, and the past few decades have seen the debate move into the theological mainstream. Today, women are increasingly being ordained as ministers in many Christian denominations; Bibles are being published using "inclusive language;" and those who stand against either of these often find themselves branded as chauvinists.

Certainly no one can deny that women have suffered abuse at the hands of males throughout history. This has caused theologian Duane Litfin to ask some penetrating questions:

What follower of Jesus could ignore the fundamental injustice of laws that work to the disadvantage of women as women? Who could fail to be outraged at the prospect of a woman being paid a fraction of what a man earns for doing the same work? What fair-minded person is not dismayed when reminded that it has only been within the life spans of many living Americans that women have been thought worthy of the vote? And what believer has not discovered blind spots within his own perspective that, on closer inspection, caused embarrassment and repentance? Any who are willing to see can find much in the feminist movement to be praised and supported.[6]

I think Litfin is right. But alas, as Litfin also notes, "the worthy goals of the movement do not stand alone."[7]

In this article, my focus will be limited to examining how evangelical feminists are arguing their case from the Bible. I will then show why traditionalists reject this variety of liberation theology. First, however, it is necessary to distinguish evangelical feminism from three other varieties of feminism.

慕容仰

The different subgroups among feminists have been categorized variously. For my purposes, I have chosen to classify them as secular feminists, New Age feminists, liberal Christian feminists, and evangelical feminists. These subgroups should not be viewed as having clearly defined lines of demarcation; rather, they are more like clusters along the theological-philosophical continuum. Along this continuum, it is possible that a feminist may fall between the clusters, thereby sharing some of the characteristics of two different groups.[8]

Secular feminists are humanists who disallow God, revelation, and religion in the discussion of feminism. They view the Bible as a major source of chauvinist ideas and a relic of antiquity that has no relevance to the ongoing debate over the roles of men and women in modern society.

New Age feminists are pagans who are typically involved in the worship of a feminine deity or goddess. (The upcoming Fall issue of the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL will feature an article by Norman L. Geisler on neopaganism and feminism.)

Liberal Christian feminists operate within a Christian framework but approach feminism (and theology in general) from a very liberal perspective. They believe the Bible writers were simply men of their times and were limited in their perspectives. Liberal Christian feminists employ a "hermeneutic of suspicion" - that is, they "systematically assume that the Bible's male authors and interpreters deliberately covered up the role of women in early Christianity."[9] Using such a hermeneutic, it is easy to sift out from the Bible anything one finds offensive to one's feminist tastes.

Evangelical feminists are those who generally (not always) hold to conservative views on the Bible and theology but who nevertheless embrace the feminist ideal of abolishing gender-based roles in society, church, and home. They believe the Bible is authoritative and, rightly understood, supports their feminist views.

Historically, the first widely publicized book on the role of women in the church that hinted at the formulation of a specific feminist theology was published in 1968: The Church and the Second Sex, by Mary Daly.[10] Following the publication of this book, the market was virtually flooded with books and articles on feminist theology, all of which challenged the idea that female subordination was ordained by God.

In 1975, a conference of evangelical feminists was held in Washington, D.C., that attracted 360 participants from across the United States. The conference formally endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment and established the Evangelical Women's Caucus (EWC), a grassroots "consciousness-raising" organization with chapters in many major cities.[11]

Some traditionalists believe that the emergence of evangelical feminism may be an example of the negative influence of trends in the wider culture on contemporary Christianity. However, Christian feminist Virginia Mollenkott rejects this assessment: "We did not become feminists and then try to fit our Christianity into feminist ideology. We heralded the feminist movement because we were convinced that the church had strayed from a correct understanding of God's will for women."[12]

Has the church strayed from a correct understanding of God's will for women? We shall now examine how evangelical feminists argue their case from Scripture. To simplify the task, I shall focus primary attention on the writings of only a few of the major evangelical feminists. Moreover, because of space limitations, I shall examine only the major arguments and the major Scripture passages they cite in support of their position.

慕容仰

We begin with the observation that evangelical feminists react against the idea that the male of the human species is most truly representative of God. E. Margaret Howe, one of the more prominent feminist theologians today, notes that this idea is largely based on Old Testament imagery that represents God as "Father," and ignores the Scriptures which typify God as "Mother." The Lord, for example, is portrayed as a nursing mother (Isa. 49:15), midwife (Ps. 22:9-10), and a female homemaker (Ps. 123:2).

In view of the tendency to view God as a male, Howe says the sexuality of God has often been stressed rather than His personhood. But "we are in the realm of mythology," she retorts, "when we conceptualize God as male, rather than female, just as we would be if we considered him to be female rather than male. The being of God transcends the limitations of sexuality."[13]

Jesus Was a Feminist. As noted earlier, many people have hailed Jesus as being a feminist in a first-century, male-chauvinist society. That Jesus considered women on an equal plane with men is clear, we are told, from the manner in which He taught women. Consider His visit to the home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42):

Martha took the typical woman's role: "Martha was distracted with much serving." Mary, however, took the supposedly "male" role: she "sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching." Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place in choosing the role of the "intellectual," for she complained to Jesus. But Jesus' response was a refusal to force all women into the stereotype: he treated Mary first of all as a person who was allowed to set her own priorities, and in this instance had "chosen the better part." And Jesus applauded her: "it is not to be taken from her."[14] Feminist Gretchen Hull calls Luke 10:38-42 "the most significant encounter because it taught that women should prefer studying theology over a preoccupation with domestic chores."[15]

Aida Spencer, another feminist writer, discounts the fact that Jesus chose twelve men to be disciples. "If Jesus' choice of twelve male [Jewish] disciples signifies that females should not be leaders in the church, then, consistently, his choice also signifies that Gentiles should not be leaders in the church."[16] But, Spencer argues, since Gentiles are allowed to be leaders in the church, the same should be true for women.

Feminists also cast Jesus in the role of a feminist in His first resurrection appearance. Mollenkott notes that "women were considered too frivolous and untrustworthy to be witnesses in a court of law, or to teach children - let alone men; yet Jesus commissioned women to be the first witnesses of His resurrection and sent them to teach the male disciples that He was risen."[17]

And because of what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection, it is argued, women have been delivered from the male domination that was caused by the Fall (Gen. 3).

Female Subordination: A Result of the Curse. Evangelical feminists argue that male headship and female subordination in the marital relationship is a part of the curse. Indeed, in Genesis 3:16 God pronounced judgment against the woman: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Mollenkott argues that "sin enters the human condition in Genesis 3. Only after Adam and Eve have substituted their will for God's will does the specter of male supremacy and female subordination enter the picture."[18] Feminist Gilbert Bilezikian thus argues that "it is proper to regard both male dominance and death as being antithetical to God's original intent in creation. Both are the result of sin, itself instigated by Satan. Their origin is satanic."[19]

The good news, feminists say, is that in Christ "the life-giving law of the Spirit has set you free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). "Theologically speaking," Howe argues, "the death of Christ released humanity from the curse brought about by sin. Woman is no longer to be subjugated under male headship. The mutual and complementary relationship that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall may now be restored."[20]

慕容仰

One might say that the theme verse for evangelical feminism is Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Evangelical feminists argue that Paul is not speaking in this verse about the equality of men and women in their spiritual standing before God, but of the practical outworking of that standing in society. Richard and Joyce Boldrey assert that "Galatians 3:28 does not say 'God loves each of you, but stay in your places'; it says that there are no longer places, no longer categories, no longer differences in rights and privileges, codes and values."[21] Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty suggest that in view of Galatians 3:28, "all social distinctions between men and women should [be] erased in the church."[22]

慕容仰

Ephesians 5:21-24 instructs men and women: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

How can this passage be interpreted to fit the feminist ideal? Feminists generally make verse 21 - which calls for husbands and wives to "submit to one another" - the governing verse of the entire passage. Because of what Christ accomplished at the Cross, the male domination brought about by the Fall has been done away with, and now there is to be mutual submission between husbands and wives in Christ.

(Traditionalists, however, often argue that the Greek pronoun allelous ["one another"] may carry the meaning "some to others" [Rev. 6:4; Gal. 6:2]. Understood this way, Ephesians 5:21 - as an introduction to verses 22-24 - may be paraphrased: "Those who are under authority should be subject to others among you who have authority over them."[23])

Ephesians 5:22-24 - which calls for wives to submit to their husbands - is problematic for feminists. They explain these verses in any one of several ways. Some argue that a hierarchical model of male/female roles may have been appropriate for New Testament times, but such a model is no longer binding on twentieth-century Christians. Indeed, "an interpretation that 'absolutizes a given historical social order' is unacceptable."[24] Scanzoni and Hardesty suggest that "passages which are theological and doctrinal in content [should be] used to interpret those where the writer is dealing with practical local cultural problems. Except Galatians 3:28 [which is theological in nature], all of the references to women in the New Testament are contained in passages dealing with practical concerns about personal relationships or behavior in worship services."[25] Thus, passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24 must give way to Galatians 3:28.

Other feminists say that while Paul taught a hierarchical model of male/female relations in Ephesians, this was based on his rabbinic training and he was wrong. Mollenkott is an example of this line of thought and says that passages that teach a hierarchical model should be seen as "distorted by the human instrument."[26]

Still other feminists deal with these verses by appealing to another possible meaning of the word "head." It is argued that Ephesians 5:23 - "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" - has nothing to do with the exercise of authority. Rather, the Greek word for "head" in this verse must mean source, a meaning supported by two pieces of ancient literature: Herodotus 4.91 and Orphic Fragments 21a.[27]

The meaning of source for "head" is certainly compatible with the Genesis account, it is argued, for indeed the woman does have her source in man.[28] Hence, as Herbert and Fern Miles argue, "there is nothing in the fifth chapter of Ephesians that would even remotely indicate" that wives are responsible to submit to their husbands.[29]

(However, New Testament scholar Wayne Grudem researched 2,336 instances of the word "head" [Greek: kephale] in all the major writings of the classical and Hellenistic Greek periods, and found no clear instances of such a usage. He says the two pieces of ancient literature cited by feminists - which predate the New Testament by 400 years - are not convincing. Moreover, "all the major lexicons that specialize in the New Testament period give [the] meaning ['authority over'], whereas none give the meaning 'source.'"[30])

慕容仰

Evangelical feminists eagerly point out that Paul allowed women to prophesy in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:2-16). However, the apostle Paul added a qualification: "Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head; the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (1 Cor. 11:5, 10). Howe takes this to mean that Paul's only concern in 1 Corinthians 11 was that women maintain their sexual identity as women, and that this should be reflected in their manner of dress. "A woman appointed to a leadership position in the church is not adopting a male role; nor, on the other hand, does she stand before the congregation as a sex object. Her hair and shoulders are to be covered because in the redemptive order she stands before God as man's equal, not as the object of man's desire. Thus the veil is a symbol of her 'authority,' authority invested in her by God as a result of the redemptive work of Christ in whom 'there is neither male nor female' (Gal. 3:28)."[31]

In light of these careful instructions, Howe argues, "it would be presumptuous to argue that Paul's later comments in this letter (14:34-35) preclude a woman from ordination on the basis that she is not permitted to speak in the church."[32]

慕容仰

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the apostle Paul said that "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Most Christian feminists say the word "speak" in 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers only to general talking or idle chatter and does not include formal lectures, exhortation, or teaching. Hence, women were prohibited by Paul from chattering or disturbing the meeting, but not from formal public teaching or leading.

A more difficult passage for feminists is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, where the apostle Paul said: "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." One popular feminist theory for explaining this passage is that Paul was prohibiting women from speaking or teaching because they had not been properly educated.[33] Hence, "because twentieth-century women are better trained and qualified to teach, Paul's directive doesn't apply. His prohibition was meant to gradually fade away along with the disappearance of social distinctions between men and women."[34]

Other feminists interpret Paul's prohibition as pertaining to women who were teaching error or false doctrine in the church. Seen in this light, the prohibition was not intended to be universally applied. Paul was simply dealing with a specific local problem in Corinth in which some misled women were leading others astray.

慕容仰

From our brief survey above, we may conclude that evangelical feminists sometimes argue their case from the biblical text (e.g., Gen. 3:16; Gal. 3:28). Other biblical texts, they say, deal with local cultural situations of the first century and thus must not be seen as normative for modern society (e.g., Eph. 5:21-24; 1 Cor. 14:33b-36; 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Evangelical feminists marshal many other arguments besides those we have cited to support their case. But the above is sufficient to illustrate their basic approach. We shall now turn our attention to how traditionalists respond to this brand of liberation theology.