Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Diana Butler Bass's avatar

I didn't mention this in the piece, but probably should have.

The Danvers Statement was crafted in Danvers, MA in 1987 (as I did say). Three hundred years earlier, in 1692, Danvers was called "Salem Village." It was the site of the first accusations of witchcraft in the notorious Salem Witch trials. Both of these Danvers episodes are part of the long history of religious extremism, misogyny, and violence against women in American history.

I wonder if those who wrote the Danvers Statement knew they were on the same ground as the witch hunters of centuries before? Historical accident? Or strangely cruel parallel?

Just wondering out loud here.

Expand full comment
Bodhi's avatar

Thank you for this important post, Diana. I'm working on an article about the misogynist texts of the NT that are used to disempower women and thought some may find this info helpful. This is specifically around the hurtful language of 1 Timothy:

Scientific analysis has shown that the language in 1 Timothy is not consistent with Paul's other writings. The words are inconsistent with Paul’s regular vocabulary, but rather are reflective of Second Century Christian writing. The writer also appears to be concerned with an early form of Gnosticism, which as many know came after Paul’s life.

1 Timothy also speaks of a church structure or hierarchy that wasn’t in place during Paul’s life. Paul’s original churches likely had no one single leader or pastor. Paul never expected his churches to last bc he believed strongly the return of Christ was imminent. The hierarchy of churches is a later development as it eventually became clear Christ wasn’t returning soon.

So women are not allowed to speak in church in the Pastoral letters. Yet Paul’s authentic letters speak otherwise. (The one exception is 1 Cor 14 and the authenticity of this verse debated, as it appears to be a later scribal insertion, and upon close inspection it seems as if it’s inserted in the midst of a passage about prophecy. My understanding is that in another early manuscript this same verse is also found in another place inserted after verse 40, so it appears to not be original and to have been added later.)

And in 1 Cor 11 Paul says women can speak in church. So Paul was actually pro-women. In Romans 16 Paul mentions women missionaries, Prisca and Perseus, and a woman deacon, Phoebe, and a woman Junia, a foremost apostle.

So how do we explain this? The influence of women within the church waned as time passed in the mid to late First Century and early Second Century. Women would’ve originally had a strong presence in house churches, but lost their authority as the church became more public. Thus this is the reason someone forged the pastoral epistles to undermine Paul’s earlier writings which demonstrated the equality and importance of women in the churches. To think of Paul as a perfect source for what God wants is undermined by the fact Paul expected to see Jesus return in his own lifetime.

There is tremendous freedom in moving beyond a need for a perfect Bible that so many Christians cling to. I used to do those mental gymnastics too. I understand it as well as anyone. Losing the idea of a perfect Bible sent me into a tailspin and I thought I would lose my faith completely at first, and those were challenging times. But God is so much greater, and also so much simpler than that. God loves all of us equally and we all have an equal part to play in spreading God's love.

Hope everyone has a great week.

Expand full comment
98 more comments...

No posts