I've Been Talking...

In the past few months I've taped a number of podcasts on a variety of topics. I also did a interview about writing with Christian Authors Network. Have a listen, watch or read. I'd love your feedback.

Podcasts:

1. Gender and Scripture — Beyond Ordinary Women podcast with Claudia McGuire

2. Sexual Identity and Gender Identity  — Beyond Ordinary Women podcast with Kay Daigle

3. Rethinking Purity Culture — Honestly Though podcast with Rebecca Carrell

4. On the Virgin Mary. — Graced Though podcast with Christian Williams 

5. Leaning into Luke’s Gospel (in conjunction with launching Latte with Luke) — Honestly Though podcast with Rebecca Carrell 

6. The Story of Ancient Christian Art and Women in Ministry — The Alabaster Jar with Lynn Cohick 

Interview

• with Christian Authors Network about writing. 

The Magdalene: Mary from Magdala or Mary Tower?

Who was Mary Magdalene? Because early New Testament manuscripts were more difficult to search than today’s books, Mary M. has at times been confused or combined with other Marys. “Mary” is a form of Miriam, the name of Moses’s sister, whom the Bible describes as a prophet and leader. 

Some have conflated Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman who anointed Jesus (Luke 7). Thus, Mary M. has been described in prose and depicted in art as a reformed prostitute. 

Others have suggested she had a romantic relationship with Jesus—or even married him!  

But the Scriptures suggest none of these things about her past. The actual details (given in Luke’s Gospel) are that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene, and she was among the healed women who traveled with Jesus and supported him from their own means (Luke 8:2–3). She went on to be an eyewitness to the sufferings of Jesus, the first witness to see the risen Christ, and the first evangelist—announcing the Lord’s resurrection to the apostles with “I have seen the Lord!” (John 20:18). The latter is why Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, described Mary Magdalene as “the apostle to the apostles.” The word apostle means “sent one,” and she was sent to relay the best news ever to the “sent ones”—the twelve.

Some say this Mary was from a Galilean fishing village called Migdal, meaning “tower,” thus “Mary from Midgal.” But she could also be “Mary nicknamed ‘Tower.’” 

In the New Testament, people often appear with two names: sometimes they have a Hebrew and a Latin name; sometimes they have a Latin and Greek one. There’s John “also called Mark” (Acts 12:12); Dorcas, also Tabitha (9:36); Nathanael, who is probably Bartholomew; Silas, who is also Silvanus; and perhaps Junia is the Latin name for the Jewish Joanna. 

Then there were the nicknames. Jesus named James and John the “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). Our Lord also emphasized the “Peter” in Simon “Peter” (Matt. 16:18), calling him “this rock”—since that’s what “Peter” means. Thomas was “also called Didymus,” or “twin” (John 11:16). The “Iscariot” in “Judas Iscariot” probably means “man of Kerioth” (a place in Palestine), distinguishing this Judas from other men by the same name. And the “Barsabbas” in “Judas Barsabbas” means “Son of the Sabbath” (Acts 15:22). The custom of having more than one name combined with our Lord’s habit of nicknaming people in his inner circle have led some to suppose that “Mary Tower” is a description not of geography but of Mary Magdalene’s personality.

Here we have a word on the subject from the Church Father Jerome (AD 340s–420s): “The unbelieving reader may perhaps laugh at me for dwelling so long on the praises of mere women; yet if he will but remember how holy women followed our Lord and Savior and ministered to Him of their substance, and how the three Marys stood before the cross and especially how Mary Magdalene—called 'The Tower' from the earnestness and glow of her faith— was privileged to see the rising Christ first of all before the very apostles, he will convict himself of pride sooner than me of folly” (Letter 127, To Principia).

We don’t know for sure. But here’s what we do know: through the life of Mary Magdalene, we see that Christ has the power to release someone—man or woman—from spiritual bondage. Interestingly, we also learn something about the validity of the New Testament. Anyone trying to fabricate a convincing history surely would have made men the key witnesses at a time when a woman’s testimony counted as little to nothing in a court of law. Yet other than the husband of the Virgin Mary or John the apostle, women were the primary witnesses of Jesus’s birth, death, and resurrection. God chose women as witnesses when their word in the legal culture carried as much weight as a dust bunny.

Yet, the best part about Mary is what we learn of Jesus through her. The great British author, Dorothy L. Sayers, summed it up beautifully in a timeless observation piece she penned more than eighty years ago:  

“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there has never been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!’; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything ‘funny’ about woman’s nature.”

Mary Magdalene speaks across the years, testifying that Jesus the Christ changes lives, setting prisoners free from all kinds of bondage. And after he has taken us from bondage to flourishing, he urges us to go and tell. 

For more about Mary M, check out Karla Zazueta’s chapter on her in Vindicating the Vixens. Also, see the work being done on her by Duke scholar Libbie Schrader. The image is of Donatello’s rendering of Mary Magdalene in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Florence, Italy.

Why Don't We See More Women in the Biblical Text?

Recently, someone asked me why we don’t find more women in the Bible. Last time, I pointed to translation concerns that hide the presence of women. Today, I want us to consider that sometimes we miss the women who are actually named and featured.

Here’s a sampling from some of the earliest stories: 

* * *

Go back in time with me to the thirteenth century BC in Egypt. The king has issued an order to kill all boys born into bondage, because members of the slave class—your own people, descendants of Israel—have proliferated, and the ruling class fears an uprising. Born under the ban, you lie in a pitch-lined basket that your mother, Jochebed, crafted before floating you in the Nile. Soon, the king’s daughter finds you and raises you as her own. So, you get an education in the royal court of Egypt—some of the best academic training in the world. As you grow, you learn the geography of Egypt and of the Sinai, and eventually you record the oral history of your people. 

 As you write, you include the heroic midwives Shiphrah and Puah—making sure everyone remembers their names—who refused to drown Hebrew boys like you (Exo. 1:15–21).  

Writing the books of the Law, you include stories about your older sister, Miriam, who helped save your life and who, decades later, partnered with you and your brother, Aaron, to lead Israel (Cp. Micah 6:4).

And you write of Sarah and Keturah. And of Hagar, who named God. Of Rebecca. And of Rachel the shepherd. And Leah. Of Bilhah and Zilpah. And of Dinah. And how Tamar, a Canaanite, was more righteous than her father-in-law, Judah, through whom Jacob said the Promised One would come (Gen. 49:10). Judah had conspired to sell his stepbrother, Joseph, into slavery. And Judah later had evil sons. But loyal love from an outsider, his daughter-in-law Tamar, had a radical effect on him. Before his encounter with her, he would sell a brother; afterward, he offered his life in exchange for one (see Genesis 38.) 

You record how God calls parents to consecrate both first-born sons and first-born daughters (Ex. 13:1).

You write down one of the stories that you witnessed firsthand, which involved five sisters, the daughters of Zelophehad:  Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. Their father had five daughters, but no male heirs. These females raised a question about women’s rights, even obligations, to inherit property in the absence of a male heir. You yourself told them you would ask God directly about their case. And the Lord had strong words: “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them.”

You and the people you write about inhabit a patriarchal culture. The words from God are inspired, of course, but the culture isn’t. And because those who will read and teach your words in centuries to come will live in worlds also steeped in patriarchy, they will focus more on the men. As they preach or teach or write commentaries, they (men and women alike) will skip Tamar’s contribution to Judah’s character arc; or gloss over the courage of  Shiphrah and Puah; or miss the significance of the chieftain Timna (Gen. 36:12, 22, 40). Or as they wrap up their look at the Book of Job, they might not even notice how, as an evidence of God’s blessing, that Job will grant his daughters—Jemimah, Keziah, and Keren-Happuch—an inheritance among their unnamed brothers (Job 42:14–15). Or note how the story of Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah receives mention in five places in Scripture (Num. 26:33; 27:1–11; 36:1–12; Josh. 17:3–6; 1 Chron 7:15—only Moses and Miriam are mentioned in more OT books).  

***

The Bible does indeed shine a spotlight on more men than women. But even many of the women we do find in its pages get minimized if not altogether left on the cutting-room floor as people preach, teach, and write about Scripture. We need these women. Why don’t we see more women in the biblical text? Why, indeed! Maybe you can have a part in telling the full story?

To be continued…

My Thoughts on Gender

We Talk Different is a podcast on culture, race, ethnicity, gender, politics, and theology. Recently my friend Jurrita and I were featured on the podcast talking about gender and faith and race. You can get the scoop at iTunes.

The "Chrisitanity and Gender" Edition - 3.14.17 - Part II The WTD team wraps up their conversation with Jur… 3/13/2017 Free View in iTunes 7

The "Christianity and Gender" Edition - 3.7.16 - Part I This week the WTD Team brings in the real intelle… 3/6/2017 Free View in iTunes

Why Peter Would NOT Want a Wife Today to Call Her Husband "Lord"

In Peter’s instruction to wives with disobedient husbands, Sarah, one of the godly woman of old who hoped in God, is singled out as modeling virtue. Her “adornment,” as was true of that of the other holy women, manifested itself in submission to her husband. And according to Peter, in her submission Sarah goes so far as to call Abraham “lord.”But strangely, the only time the Old Testament describes Sarah calling Abraham “lord” is in the context of an off-hand comment she makes in response to the revelation that she will become pregnant by him when they are quite old (Gen. 18:12). She scoffs and asks if she will have pleasure, and then seems further amused at the double impossibility, saying, “my lord being old also.”To contemporary male and female Western ears, the thought of a woman calling her husband “lord” seems absurd. But another text in Genesis helps readers see how people in Sarah’s day used the word. When the visitors appeared to Abraham, he himself used the term as form of polite address. Genesis 18:1–3 says this:“The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.”Abraham is speaking to a stranger of whom he is asking a request. His use of “lord” is not an indication of a power differential, but of respect.Some scholars consider it strange that Peter would point to a moment when Sarah scoffed at God’s word as an example of submission. And they look to another option that may shed light on Peter’s meaning. In an extracanonical Jewish document, The Testament of Abraham, roughly contemporary with Peter’s letter, Sarah frequently addresses Abraham as “lord.” In this narrative, she is depicted as the ideal Hellenistic wife, and her speech reveals an honoring heart.The Testament of Abrahamis a pseudepigraphic text of the Old Testament. Likely composed in the first or second century AD, the work is of Jewish origin and usually considered part of the apocryphal literature. Its text deals with Abraham’s reluctance to die and the events that led to his departure from earth.There are two versions of the same story in circulation, and in both Sarah refers to Abraham as “lord.” In the first, she does so five times; in the second, she does so only once. But in both cases, the scene takes place after a visitor has arrived and everyone, including Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, has gone to sleep. Isaac has a dream that Abraham will die and he runs in to embrace his father. The sound of Abraham and Isaac weeping in each other’s arms awakens Sarah. So she runs to them. The text of version one says this:And Sarah said with weeping, my lord Abraham, what is this that you weep? Tell me, my lord, has this brother that has been entertained by us this day brought you tidings of Lot, your brother's son, that he is dead?[2]The visitor explains to her what is happening. And the text continues…Then Sarah, hearing the excellence of the conversation of the chief-captain, straightway knew that it was an angel of the Lord that spoke. Sarah therefore signified to Abraham to come out toward the door, and said to him, my lord Abraham, do you know who this man is?Abraham said, I know not.Sarah said, “You know, my lord, the three men from heaven that were entertained by us in our tent beside the oak of Mamre, when you killed the kid without blemish, and set a table before them. . . Do you not know, my lord Abraham, that by promise they gave to us Isaac as the fruit of the womb? Of these three holy men, this is one.[3]Version two tells the same story with somewhat different wording. Nevertheless, the meaning is the same. Sarah’s one reference to Abraham as “lord” occurs when she runs into the bed chamber and asks her husband, “My lord Abraham, why is this weeping? Has the stranger told you of your brother's son Lot that he is dead?’”Both in Abraham’s use of the phrase in Genesis, and in Sarah’s use of it in a document roughly contemporary with Peter, the meaning is the same. That is, “my lord” is a term of respect and even endearment. In neither case does it carry the same sense that a wife calling her husband “my lord” today would have—which would suggest that she is his servant and he is her master.There is great debate about Peter’s universalizing of submission by the reference to a wife calling her husband “lord.” How, one wonders, are today’s readers to apply these words? All interpreters are, to some degree, playing the “culture” card in order to live out the spirit of the text. No matter what scholars believe regarding how much culture should play a role in contemporary application of 1 Peter, all who hold to inerrancy seem to agree that today’s wife is not only not obligated to call her husband “lord,” but also that doing so would violate Peter’s goal of enhancing one’s gospel witness. Indeed, doing so today would repel most people from the faith. Peter is not saying women should shut up and be slaves to their husbands, saying “yes, master” to them. Rather, he’s using Sarah’s wise behavior to illustrate his point: respect for unbelievers, especially husbands, is winsome (3:1).Peter encourages his readers by saying, “You have become her [Sarah’s] children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear (v. 6, NASB). One possible reason Peter’s suffering readers should look to Sarah is that at least twice in her life she suffered injustice at the hands of a disobedient husband. He told her to lie. And then he himself told both Pharaoh (Gen. 12:19) and later the king of Gerar (20:2) the lies he wanted her to tell. In both cases, Abraham attempted to pass her off as his sister rather than his wife so that no harm would come to him. Sarah was taken into pharaoh’s palace (12:15) and presumably had relations with him. The king of Gerar similarly took her (20:1). In both cases God intervened supernaturally on Sarah’s behalf and gave her the grace afterward to speak of her husband with respect and endearment, saying, “my lord.”Writing in a context in which women could not call a hotline or flee to a local shelter if her husband threatened or abused her, Peter wants wives to do their best both to keep from endangering themselves and to gain the husband’s respect while remaining loyal to Christ. Doing so would require great wisdom and courage. Perhaps this is why Peter urges such wives not to be “frightened by any fear.” Peter wants wives to be courageous as they win their husbands through their silent witness.All this is not to say a woman today should endure abuse. Peter is not describing the ideal, but an extremely un-ideal situation in which wives had few options. Sarah similarly had few options; Western women today have many more—and we should counsel abused women to use them.Both the men and women in Peter’s readership are suffering and have logical reason to be truly afraid. They have zero social power; the danger is real. And in crafting his instruction to wives, Peter assumes that, like men, women are made to be courageous. He believes they are capable of fearing God more than humans, even in the face of intense persecution and extreme injustice. He points to a long history of godly women to make his case. And he is certainly well aware that believing wives’ loyalty to Christ over their husbands may lead to more suffering. These women are not to be frightened, however, but place their hope in God, trusting that he will vindicate them, if not in the present world, then in the next.Next time, why he calls wives “weaker vessels” . . . .[1]Testament of Abraham, version one. Translated by W.A. Craigie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1007.htm>.[2]Ibid, version 2.

9 Qualities of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

It's my week to post on the Engage (bible.org) women's leadership blog. Here's my entry for yesterday:More than 35 years ago when I started dating a guy named Gary Glahn, he liked to grow bonsai trees and cacti. For my high school graduation, he sewed us matching down vests—that we still wear—from a kit. During my freshman year of college, he drew me a rose and shaded it perfectly with colored pencils. I hung it on the wall in my dorm. His plant growing, his sewing skills, and his drawing all got him labeled as a sissy.One of my introverted male students told of a time when he visited a church for the first time. He wanted to sit back, observe, and get a feel for whether this place might be a good fit for his gifts. During the adult Bible fellowship, the larger group divided up into smaller groups, and he ended up as the lone male with a few women who were regular attenders. These women handed him the teaching guide and expected him to lead the discussion. He was mortified that they deemed adhering to strict gender roles more important than making him feel welcome and comfortable as a guest–not to mention checking out his theology.A former fellow employee is a single guy who’s an artist. An introvert, he dislikes sports and prefers to create. People ask him if he’s gay. He’s not.When my husband goes to Kenya, he sees women thatching the roofs of huts. In parts of Africa, thatching rooftops is “women’s work.” But in America, people often describe a female roofer as “doing a man’s job.”Among American married couples, the husband may drive the car because he’s the guy taking the lead. In some countries, the wife drives because she’s taking on the servant’s role.Some years back, a deacon at a church we attended filed for bankruptcy. This man had a nice pool in his yard. The leaders told him they didn’t want him to file. Instead, they wanted to take up an offering, organize garage sales, and come up with all manner of creative ways to help him pay his debts so that the name of Christ would not be slandered. He refused. So the church asked him to step down until he could get a grip on his finances. He argued, “If a guy can’t lead, there’s nowhere for him to serve.” So he left.I sit on the fence between introvert and extravert. One of my spiritual gifts is teaching. But my husband is definitely an introvert, and his gifts lie in administration. I usually find myself in front of a crowd; he heads for the accounting office. In the first years of our marriage, people assumed we suffered from role reversal…that I “wore the pants in the family.” After all, they reasoned, he was supposed to be visible, and I was supposed to be invisible.Each of these anecdotes reflects a distorted view of gender. What people (especially middle-class, American evangelicals) have failed to take into account in each case is that when we put men and women in boxes according to narrowly defined definitions of masculinity and femininity, we deny the full and dynamic range of the personhood God created. Yes, men and women are different. But the moment we insist on how our sex differences must work themselves out socially—saying things like “women are more emotional,” “men are more detached,” “women need love,” and “men need respect”—we stuff people into boxes. Our theology should be broad enough to consider normal the relatively unemotional woman and the man who desires affection more than respect —or any cultural variation of gender role outside the USA. If it’s biblical, it’s global.The way to become our most fully flourishing male and female selves is not for women to wear frilly clothes and men to fart, grill steaks, rescue damsels, kill Bambi, and retreat to their man-caves—despite what Christian books on gender might suggest.Interestingly, the Bible never outlines what feminine and masculine behavior looks like. Jesus cooks; Jael wields a tent peg; Paul weeps; Miriam prophesies. Indeed, the Bible includes no exhortations to pursue manhood and womanhood. Rather, the apostles and prophets focus on something else: the fruit of the Spirit 1– love; 2–joy; 3–peace; 4–patience; 5–goodness; 6–kindness; 7–gentleness; 8–faithfulness; and 9–self-control. And experience tells me that the more someone pursues Christlikeness, the more fully he or she flourishes as a man or as a woman.Our fully actualized masculine and feminine selves develop as by-products of our spiritually developing selves. If we make it our goal to be masculine or feminine, we miss Christlikeness. If we set our focus on being like Christ, we discover to our delight that we become the men and women God created us to be.

Medieval Art and Spirituality

I leave today for Italy to teach a two-week course in medieval art and spirituality. We start in Rome and train up to Orvieto, home base for a week—with day trips to Assisi and Siena. After that...stay tuned to find out.One of the shifts in art I discovered in my preparations was that the church has not always allowed images of God the Father (such as we see in the Sistine Chapel). The introduction of the human male image of the Father in addition to the Protestant removal of Mary has left us not only with human images of the invisible God(!),  but a view of Christianity that makes us think even our Deity is predominately male. If you have about an hour for an interesting history lesson on the subject, check out this lecture on "Visual Heresy: Imagine God the Father in the History of Art" by Wheaton's associate professor of Art History.

On Gender-Inclusive Language

When the Collins Dictionary linguists used their computational analysis to query their database on language use (4.4 billion words!), they discovered that evangelicals are using "man" to refer to the human race far more often than the general population. As in three or four times more often.

Douglas J. Moo said in his report to the Evangelical Theological Society at the San Diego 50th anniversary dinner for the NIV translation, "What determines 'correct' English is not some nineteenth or twentieth-century style manual or the English we were taught in grade school but the English that people are actually speaking and writing today. And the data are very clear: modern English has latched on to the so-called 'singular they,' which has been part of English for a long time, as the preferred way to follow up generic nouns and pronouns." That means, despite what our English teachers taught us, that someone can take their toys and go home. In fact, if we say someone can take his toys and go home, listeners notice—and not in a good way.

Christmas Reflection: Sinner and Sinner Reconciled

“The angel answered [Mary, saying], ‘The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’” (Luke 1:35, NIV)

Back in the beautiful orchard on a Friday afternoon, God made male and female in His image. What an astonishing creation—human flesh imaging God! But before long something horrible happened.

Sin destroyed the unity humanity experienced, and all creation was affected by their plunge into sin. One ramification was the distortion of male/ female relations. Enter the gender wars—the battle of the sexes. Loneliness and selfish independence replaced unity and interdependence.

As a consequence of sin, God issued a devastating prediction: woman’s desire would be for man, and man would rule over woman (Genesis 3:15–16). The author of Genesis recorded this traumatic news, and one chapter later, he used the same juxtaposition of “rule” and “desire” to describe the power struggle of sin with Cain’s will (4:7).

Until Christmas. Enter the God-Man. A male, arrived sans-sperm through the womb of a virgin. Human flesh once again perfectly imaged God, only this time that “image of the invisible God” was incarnate in the person of the Son of God.

The very way Jesus came demonstrated male/female interdependence. And through Christ and His Spirit we have the reason and the empowerment to overcome rebellion and regain unity. The God who is all fair abolishes the prejudices that divide us.

In Christ we sing of “God and sinners reconciled.” And that reconciliation is both horizontal and vertical. Because of Christmas, we are reconciled to God. Because of Christmas, we can and must also be reconciled with each other.

Child Brides and the Christian

This five-year-old child bride was spirited off to her wedding in the night by her uncle.

About one in every three girls worldwide becomes a bride before the end of her seventeenth year, and one girl in nine marries before age fifteen.[1] Many countries have passed laws outlawing child marriages, but often communities ignore the law. Child marriages disrupt education, limit girls’ economic potential, and correlate with high levels of sexual abuse and violence. Early marriage is also associated with increased rates of maternal and infant mortality. All of this perpetuates the cycle of poverty, reinforcing it, and making it hard to escape, and ultimately contributing to regional instability.

And that’s where we come in. Christians can do much to change attitudes and practices at a heart level. Here are some suggestions:

 Share the gospel and biblical resources online.  Many people without flush toilets own cell phones and access web content with them. The best way to change attitudes is through changed hearts. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that Internet and cellular phone technology through which people access online content means that “modern and international influences are felt” (p. 18). Speak on behalf of victims. Such speaking includes challenging rape-culture thinking and paying attention to how we talk about those who have been violated. In many communities, sexual violence becomes a reason to shame the victim. Challenge such thinking! Work to shift the dishonor from the victim to the criminal. Affirm those who have endured sexual abuse and violence when they speak out about their trauma.   Sponsor girls. Help girls stay in school. Their education is strongly connected with a family’s ability to pull itself out of poverty, and often parents will not let girls attend school unless someone sponsors them. Each additional year of age at marriage boosts the likelihood of literacy by 5 percentage points. And helping girls stay in school increases their literacy, which is correlated with many improvements in safety, health, and community stability.Train pastoral leaders. Teach all who speak and who perform weddings to embrace a biblical view of gender equality that eschews viewing girls as commodities. And encourage spiritual leaders to obey local laws about age at marriage. The report cited above—produced by an independent, nonpartisan think tank—suggests that trainers work with religious leaders across the world, “educating men and boys about why delaying marriage is beneficial to all” as “these two groups are influential in deciding the future of girls and women in many communities” (p. 16). In your conversations with nationals, raise questions about girls’ education, emphasizing how much you value making female education a priority. Express admiration, respect, and honor for those who demonstrate a high view of women and who teach that God views females as fellow heirs. Consider giving a public award that acknowledges those who have done so.If you are involved in relief work, factor the unique needs of girls into post-disaster planning. The periods immediately following such disasters are times of especially high vulnerability for females. Studies show that women and girls bear a disproportionate brunt of the long-terms effects of upheavals. In Uganda, for example, food crises due to climate change have forced girls into “famine marriages” (p. 37). Tsunamis, typhoons, civil war, and regional conflicts also drive up the child-bride and violence-to-women rates. Such crises disrupt education, too. So include in your efforts providing security and education for children in refugee camps. And support outreaches that work to educate child brides long-term, such as Arab Woman Today Ministires.Consider joining an education team going to a location where leaders are asking for teachers. A priest I met in Jordan asked for English-speaking volunteers to come for two weeks and help the students in his school improve their language skills. Your knowledge can help.

Genesis tells us that females are made in the image of God and that they share with males the mandate to have dominion over the earth. We demonstrate that we are fulfilling this mandate when we use our influence to bring about global good in the name of Christ—doing justice (Mic. 6:8) and speaking up for those who have no voice (Prov. 31:8–9).  

[1] Gayle T. Lemmon and Lynn S. ElHarake, “Child Brides, Global Consequences: How to End Child Marriage,” Council on Foreign Relations: New York, 2014, vii. 

How to Watch The Red Tent

Yes, The Red Tent is coming to television in a two-night mini-series on Lifetime TV. One hour before the series airs, some well-known Christian women talk about women of the Bible. If you want to gather some friends, or even turn this into a meaningful personal experience, a decent guide for thinking about The Red Tent is Women of Faith's conversation guide.  Genesis presents Dinah as the daughter of Jacob and Leah, and the sister of themen who would become the twelve tribes of Israel, including the famous Josephof the “coat of many colors.” She was the lone daughter in a family with twelvebrothers and four mothers. Dinah is briefly mentioned in Genesis (see chapter 34), buther story ends abruptly, as the point of the Genesis text is to answer “How didthe twelve tribes come to be?” and not “Who were all the children of Jacob?” Thefact that Dinah is even mentioned, then, is actually a nod to women, as Moses chose to include an episode about her.  Where the text falls silent, Anita Diamant picks itup and imagines where Dinah’s story might lead. The biblical account tells readers that Dinah was raped, butThe Red Tent has a different take on that narrative. In fact, Anita Diamantportrays all of the women in this series with more agency than the biblicaltext gives them, so you’ll find no victims here, even if the text says theywere treated unjustly. And the women are shown to have completely harmoniousrelationships rather than having any infighting (as the text suggests—as domost people with knowledge of polygamous families). Those who can overlook this detail, will find a powerful story about forgiveness and an interestingexcursion into how each person’s point of view on events might differ.  A few warnings: As with the biblical text, this story is R-rated, so expect somenudity. Also, try to overlook that Joseph’s character looks about as Semitic asOwen Wilson. And finally, if you can suspend disbelief and expect the story to differ from the biblical text, you will get more out of it. That is not to say the biblical text is unimportant. But rather, this show is an exercise in how points of view can differ. This story takes place in Dinah's point of view, and in a number of cases, she is shown to have incorrect perceptions.  I suggest reading Genesis 25–50 before watching the show. When I previewed itwith my husband, we found ourselves constantly curious about what the textactually said. So finally, we stopped and read it. Again, the point was not to be irritated that the film didn't stick to the biblical narrative. Rather, it helped us to better appreciate the Genesis story. Typically when we read Genesis, believers make Jacob's children out to be Boy Scouts rather than murderous brutes. The Red Tent helps us imagine them more accurately. Remember, most of them sold their brother to slavery. One slept with his father's wife. And at least one is known to have paid a prostitute.  I read the book, The Red Tent, which is better than the movie. In fact, both Diamant's text and the biblical text are better than the movie. I recommend both! But both my husband and I liked this mini-series, too.

The Red Tent Premiers Sunday

HIGHLY ACCLAIMED AND BELOVED BEST-SELLING NOVEL The Red Tent A TWO-NIGHT MINISERIES EVENT PREMIERING DECEMBER 7 and 8 ON LIFETIME®  All-Star Cast Features: Academy Award®, Golden Globe® and Emmy® Nominee MINNIE DRIVER Emmy Nominee MORENA BACCARIN Golden Globe Nominee REBECCA FERGUSON IAIN GLEN, WILL TUDOR and Academy Award, Golden Globe and Emmy Nominee DEBRA WINGER
Lifetime’s miniseries The Red Tent, based on the best-selling novel by Anita Diamant, premieres December 7 and December 8 at 9pm ET/PT. The Red Tent is a sweeping tale that takes place during the times of the Old Testament, told through the eyes of Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob. Airing over two nights, the all-star cast includes Academy Award, Golden Globe and Emmy nominee Minnie Driver (Return to Zero, About a Boy), Emmy nominee Morena Baccarin (Homeland), Golden Globe nominee Rebecca Ferguson (The White Queen), Iain Glen (Game of Thrones), Will Tudor (Game of Thrones) and Academy Award, Golden Globe, and Emmy nominee Debra Winger (Terms of Endearment).
The miniseries begins with Dinah’s (Ferguson) happy childhood spent inside the red tent where the women of her tribe gather and share the traditions and turmoil of ancient womanhood. The film recounts the story of Dinah’s mothers Leah (Driver), Rachel (Baccarin), Zilpah and Bilhah, the four wives of Jacob (Glen). Dinah matures and experiences an intense love that subsequently leads to a devastating loss, and the fate of her family is forever changed. Winger portrays Rebecca, Jacob’s mother while Tudor stars as Joseph, Dinah’s brother.
The Red Tent has sold millions of copies worldwide and has been translated in 28 languages. The novel is a New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today and Entertainment Weekly top-ten bestseller.
Produced by Sony Pictures Television, The Red Tent is executive produced by Paula Weinstein (Blood Diamond). Roger Young (Law & Order) directs from a script by Elizabeth Chandler (The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) and Anne Meredith (Secrets of Eden). Women of the Bible to Air Immediately before The Red Tent The husband-wife team of Mark Burnett and Roma Downey—producersof the popular mini-series, The Bible—have produced a new two-hour LifetimeSpecial, The Women of the Bible, set to air right before The Red Tent. The program will includemy friend Priscilla Shirer among other high-profile women Bible teachers.   The Women of the Bible, narrated by Downey, will recount storiesfrom Scripture, and it is billed as “a fresh look at the sacred text from theperspective of its heroines.” Faith leaders such as Shirer, ChristineCaine, Victoria Olsen, Eva Rodriguez, and Joyce Meyer will reveal little knownfacts about Eve, Sarah, Rehab, Mary Magdalene, and the Virgin Mary. Alsoproviding commentary is Kay Warren, who is scheduled to speak at DTS on April20 as the keynote speaker at our conference on Ministry to the Marginalized. Come back here on December 4 to find out my take on the film as well as my suggestions for watching.

Compelling Love and Sexual Identity

In a culture polarized by strong and often differing opinions, how can we connect with those whose beliefs, values, and lifestyles we find offensive? Over the past year, my colleague Dr. Gary Barnes and my student Nathan Chan along with lots of others have traveled the country, posing this question to scores of people with different sexual orientations and gender identities. In this feature film is the result of their work. Who sits across the table from you?

Bathsheba's Story: How I changed my perspective

Today we have a guest post from one of my former students, Sarah Bowler. I served as one of her thesis readers, and she did some brilliant work, a sampling of which you'll find here: 

Bathsheba’s story captures our attention. Painters, such as Jean-Léon Gérôme or Rembrandt, have depicted her bathing provocatively. Actress Susan Hayword brought her story to life in the 1951 film “David and Bathsheba,” nominated for five Academy Awards. Authors speculate on her life in historical fiction works.

I’ve even stumbled across various forms of this social media meme (see photo).

Notice the words “David had an affair,” a fairly common phrase. I thought little of it the first time I saw the meme, but when I conducted research for my thesis on Bathsheba, my perspective changed.

I started with the notion that Bathsheba tends to get a bad rap. I had always figured the details regarding her responsibility in the situation were ambiguous, and thus we should be careful with assumptions about her character. But the more I delved into the biblical text the more I realized her story wasn’t as ambiguous as I thought.

For example:

We often say Bathsheba bathed on top of a roof. >>> The text and cultural studies indicate she was probably in an enclosed courtyard.We portray Bathsheba naked. >>> The Hebrew word is ambiguous. She could have been washing her hands or her feet only (while fully clothed).We view Bathsheba as a woman whose immodesty caused a king to stumble. >>> We should instead view David as a “peeping Tom.”We point out that Bathsheba “came to the palace.” >>> We fail to mention David sent messengers (plural) to fetch her.We tend to call the situation an affair. >>>The evidence from the text suggests it was rape.We bestow upon Bathsheba partial blame. >>> The biblical author placed the blame fully on King David.

But why do the details of one story really matter? Does our view of Bathsheba affect how we live out our Christian faith? I believe it does.

As I researched, I found current examples in which Christian writers and editors failed to be empathetic toward victims and demonstrated a “lack of understanding and discernment in regard to sexual predation, child abuse and rape culture mentality” (quote from: Heather Celoria).

Even sadder, some spiritual leaders rape or sexually abuse young women, and many of the victims still receive partial blame in situations where a spiritual leader is fully at fault.

How we interpret biblical narratives affects how we interpret events around us.

Now, when I hear phrases like “David had an affair” or “Bathsheba bathed on a roof,” I don’t just simply think about how she gets a bad rap. I think about how she was an innocent victim, and I think about the “modern day Bathshebas” who exist today.

Bathsheba’s story ought to prompt careful thought because the repercussions of allowing negative stereotypes to persist are very real. I long for the day when believers eradicate the line of thinking where the victim shares partial blame for a perpetrator’s sin.

One step toward that end is sharing the “true” Bathsheba story.

Bewitched: A Bible Story for Halloween

As the world focuses on goblins, witches, death, and cemeteries, we find in the Word a lesson for the season…. 

Double, double, Saul in trouble/Flew to Endor on the double. 

The year was about 1007 BC. When our story in 1 Samuel 28 opens, the prophet Samuel has died and King Saul has removed all the fortunetellers and mediums from the land—one of his few obedient acts. 

When his enemies, the Philistines, assembled at Shunem in the north part of Palestine, King Saul cobbled together an army. As he camped with his troops at nearby Gilboa, the size of the Philistine force left him quaking. By all accounts they had the manpower to take out Israel. 

Saul had known all along that the kingdom would eventually go to David. And because at this time David lived among the Philistines, Saul had even more reason to think, “Maybe this is it for me.” So he sought some divine reassurance about his military plans. But God remained silent. All the usual means of knowing His will dried up—the Lord didn’t speak through dreams or the Urim or through the prophets. 

So did King Saul put on sackcloth and ashes and fast? Did he pull an all-nighter in prayer? Did he wait on God? Of course not. He did what he always did—he took matters into his own hands. This time he told his servant to find him a medium so he could ask her what to do. How ironic. This king who, in one of his few acts of obedience to the Lord had outlawed mediums (according to Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27), sought to know God’s will through a medium. Interestingly, Saul’s servant knew just where to find someone versed in the dark arts. Hm-m-m. Why would he know that?

So Saul’s servant told the king about a woman who lived near where Gideon and Barak experienced their victories—in Endor.  

Now, since Saul had (rightly) decreed that being a medium was a capital offense, he couldn’t exactly show up at the witch’s door wearing his kingly garb. So he disguised himself and took two of his men to Endor. When he arrived at the medium’s house, he told the woman,  “Use your ritual pit to conjure up for me the one I tell you.” (A ritual pit was what magicians used to conjure up underworld spirits.) 

But she protested. Reminding him that the king had outlawed mediums, she asked, “Why are you trying to trap me?” Why should she risk her life for these strangers?

That question alone should have given Saul pause. But instead of reflecting and repenting, he made her promises. In a pathetic gesture of assurance, he did more than merely swear an oath. He did so in the name of Israel’s God: “As surely as Yahweh lives, you will not incur guilt in this matter!” 

Doesn’t that give you the chills—and not in a good way? Saul used the name of the one who is holy, holy, holy to promise that no harm would come to one who violated God’s commands by seeking to communicate with the dead. 

So she conceded. “Who do you want me to conjure up?” she asked.

“Samuel.”

The Hebrew text here wastes no words. The next line says, “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out loudly” (vs. 12).  The appearance of the actual prophet told her that her client was King Saul himself.

Some say the one who appeared was not really Samuel, but rather a demon posing as Samuel. Yet the text gives no such indication, treating the one who appeared as the actual deceased prophet. The fact that the woman discerned the identity of her client as soon as the prophet appeared suggests to me that she was usually a fake. At the very least, something out of the norm for her was happening. 

Saul assured the medium that she should calm down and tell him what she had seen.  

Her reply? “I have seen one like a god coming up from the ground!”  

 “What about his appearance?” Saul asked further.

  “An old man is coming up! He is wrapped in a robe.”

  The text in other places tells us that Elijah wore a mantle, which was like a large cape (2 Kings 2). And something about the woman’s description signaled to Saul that the figure was indeed Samuel. So the king responded with respect: “He bowed his face toward the ground and kneeled down” (28:14). 

But Samuel was none too happy. Why? One possibility: he felt unhappy about getting yanked out of paradise. But a more likely option is that he especially disliked being a part of situation in which his very presence stemmed from others’ disregard for God’s Word. Whatever his reason, he asked Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” 

Saul replied by explaining about God’s silence and how terrified he was—how the Philistines were ready to wage war in overwhelming numbers. 

  “Why are you asking me, now that Yahweh has turned away from you and has become your enemy?” Samuel demanded. Even if God had not already determined to kill Saul, He had promised to set His face against anyone who sought a medium (Lev. 20:6). In another touch of irony, in seeking safety Saul had increased the risk. Besides, if God Himself had refused to speak, why would Saul think he’d get any assurance from a lesser source? 

Do you suppose the doom Samuel pronounced was the response that the already-terrified Saul expected? 

Not one to mince words, Samuel continued: “Yahweh has done exactly as I prophesied! Yahweh has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David!” (28:18). Saul went on to predict destruction for Israel. “Yahweh will hand you and Israel over to the Philistines! Tomorrow both you and your sons will be with me. Yahweh will also hand the army of Israel over to the Philistines!” (v. 19).

Some understand Samuel as saying, “Rejoice. You’ll be in paradise tomorrow.” But more likely, he was saying, “I’m dead. And you too are a dead man—and not just you, but also your sons.”

The revelation sent Saul over the edge. He threw himself full length on the ground and shook for fear. As he had gone without food and made a nighttime journey, he already had no strength when he arrived. The bad news only added to his weakened condition, draining him of what little energy he had left.  

The woman, seeing how terrified Saul was, had a heart. She basically said, “I did what you required. Now it’s my turn to give orders.” Then she insisted that he let her feed him. But he refused.

When the king’s servants and the woman pressed further, however, he got up from the ground and sat on the bed. Meanwhile, the woman killed her fatted calf, made some unleavened bread, and fed Saul and his servants.  

And the next day Saul and his sons were killed in battle.  

So what do we learn from this story?

Believe God is sovereign. In the larger context surrounding this narrative, the people to whom the story is addressed receive a reminder of how God always had His hand on their nation, even in the bad times. Despite a disobedient king, God accomplished His purposes.

Seek God’s will in God’s ways.  Saul wanted to know the future, but God didn’t want him to know. So Saul took matters into his own hands and demanded an answer in a way that displeased God. Do you think he felt any better once he found out?  

Know that God keeps His promises. Years earlier God had promised to turn against all who sought mediums. And he had promised to put David on the throne of Israel. By the time the story ends, He has fulfilled both promises. He does what He says He’ll do.

Trust the one who is Lord of life and death. The God who allowed a spirit to be brought back from paradise later brought about the pivot-point of history in a sealed tomb. He is the God of the living—the one who raised Lazarus, Dorcas, and Jairus’s daughter. And only He can raise the dead. Why would anyone waste time with those who claim to conjure up spirits when our God has power over both spirits and bodies? And He offers new life to all who trust His resurrected Son. 

A Mini-Reader about Women

Time for some quick-read primary sources. 

Have you ever read what Nathaniel Hawthorne had to say about Anne Hutchinson?

What about the transcript of Anne Hutchinson's Trial?  

And "Still I Rise" by Maya Angelou.

And then there's Margaret Atwood's Bored. (Thanks to my intern, Michelle, for finding these). 

And let's not forget Virginia Woolf's imaginative piece in A Room of One's Own titled "Shakespeare's Sister" in which she images life for the bard's sister if she shared his level of talent.

And finally, Sojourner Truth's lyric speech, "Ain't I A Woman?" that reveals how class-blind we have been about the gender debate.

Who says we have to save these nuggets for Women's History month?

Who Were the Women with Shaved Hair (1 Cor 11:5)?

A few week ago, I published this post on bible.org's Engage blog (formerly Tapestry):

Erotic brothel art from Pompeii. I've edited it for modesty,but it demonstrates that no one has a shaved head.

The past fifty years at Pompeii have uncovered an enormous amount of social data that helps us understand New Testament backgrounds. Because the city was buried relatively instantly in A.D. 79, everything was preserved like a time capsule in the same era in which some of the New Testament was written. Interestingly, one of the places that yields data for us is the brothel.The house of ill repute in Pompeii depicts erotic scenes associated with certain rooms where sexual options appear in paintings with price lists. And this unlikely place actually sheds light on Paul’s meaning in 1 Corinthians 11:5. There he writes, “But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head” (1 Cor. 11:5).Perhaps you, like me, have been taught that having a shaved head identified a woman as a prostitute. Here are quotes from a couple of commentaries that take such an interpretation:“There is the local and contemporary custom that had prostitutes and the likes shave their head” [sic].These women were “cropping their hair, after the manner of the notorious Corinthian prostitutes.”(Notice that in both cases there is reference to the culture of the day to figure out Paul’s meaning; all commentators resort to culture in trying to figure out the local practices and what they meant.)But we have no evidence whatsoever that head-shaving was a practice done by prostitutes. We do, however, have evidence that doing so was associated with the punishment for adultery. In fact, we find such a connection in the Old Testament.In an academic article on the subject, Dr. Phillip Payne writes, “The article in 'the shorn woman' implies a recognized class of woman, probably the accused adulteress whose disgrace paralleled the symbolism of loose hair, since by it a woman places on herself the accusation of adultery. This allusion perfectly fits the ‘bitter water’ ordeal of letting down the hair of a suspected adulteress (Num. 5:11–31) and, if she is convicted, of cutting off her hair.… This custom is paralleled in non- Jewish customs cited by Tacitus (A. D. 98), Germania, 19; Aristophanes 3, 204–07; and Dio Chrysostom (A.D. 100), Discourses, 64.2–3.”The brothel art in Pompeii depicts prostitutes with full heads of hair, never shaved. Other erotic art from Pompeii shows sexually promiscuous women with their hair done up as the matrons wore it (see photo below). Prostitutes probably indicated their profession not by their hair style but by their dress, as is still true in most places today.So what does Paul mean if he’s not referring to prostitutes? Payne is probably right. Most likely the wives in Corinth were “letting down their hair,” a practice probably associated with spiritual freedom in Dionysus worship. But doing so was the equivalent to taking off their wedding rings, which shamed their husbands and suggested they were “available.” It’s not that what these women were doing was suggestive or immodest any more than taking off a wedding ring is sexy. But it was shameful and dishonoring because of what it communicated.And the instruction appears to be something applicable only to wives. The “head” of a woman” is probably her husband (cp. Eph 5), not all men everywhere. Notice, too, that Paul does not tell all the wives they need to do something about their hair (which was their covering, v. 15). He has in view only those marked as speaking to or for God (i.e., praying and prophesying, v. 5). This latter detail is often lost in the debate. Paul was not discussing whether or not women/wives should speak in the gathered assembly. That was a given. The question was only about how they should do so.Sources: Plutarch; Elaine Fantham in Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009; Richard Oster, NT Studies 34, 1998; Antonio Varone, Eroticism in Pompeii. Los Angeles: The Getty Museum, 2001; Phillip Payne, “Wild Hair and Gender Equality in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16,” Pris. Pap. 20:3 (Sept. 2006); p. 12.Comments:Corinthian Head-coveringsSubmitted by Henry RouseHi Sandi, I really appreciate your article, especially since we are beginning a preaching series through 1 Corinthians at our church. You got me thinking.I also wonder if we actually miss the main point of the passage, especially in my conservative (fundamentalist/literalist) tradition. We focus SO much on getting the cultural practice correct that we actually do things that go 'fundamentally' against the teaching of the text. Surely Paul's point is that the Corinthian believers were doing things that brought shame and dishonor to their "head". That is, the wives were dishonoring their husbands and the men were dishonoring Christ by what they were doing in their cultural setting, especially when it came to their participation in worship in the church. His instruction is that they should stop dishonoring their "heads" when they come to worship. The correct application for today would be to examine if we are doing things in our worship practices that culturally dishonor our husbands, wives or Christ. What I find interesting is that, in my tradition, seeking to apply this passage and 1 Corinthinas 14 ultra-literally we have prohibited our wives (and all women) from participation in worship and forced them to wear culturally irrelevant and embarrassing head coverings. Have we in fact disobeyed the real point of the text and dishonored our wives in an attempt to force a culturally irrelevant literalistic application which is unwarranted and hermeneutically poor?I don't see the issue as being head coverings, veils, short vs long hair or any such thing. The issue is simple; are we worshipping or even living in a way that culturally honors our mates and our Saviour? If not then we need to change the way we worship and live. We need to be people and churches that live and worship in ways that bring honor and respect to each other and to Christ within the culture that we live.Would love to hear your thoughts.HenryResponse from Dr. Glahn:Henry, I think you totally got it. Spot on.In addition, in a pagan culture, it's sometimes easy to add Christ to the cafeteria of gods, which may also have been part of what was happening in Corinth. My intern lived for a year in India, and she noted, "In 1 Cor 11 on men's hairstyles communicating participation in the Dionysian cult: It just seems to me that rather than focusing on the outward signs of hair style or marriage, Paul is focusing on what the believers' behaviors/styles were communicating to their respective cultures about who they worship."I think it's interesting and I can see it's relevance in a polytheistic culture, much like when Hindus accept Christ. Are they simply adding Christ to their pantheon and still showing the signs of worship of other gods, like wearing a bindi that would show that they've been to puja that morning? Or are they shedding off all of the other gods to worship God alone? I think there's a connection there."Something often lacking in the debate as well is that 1 Cor 11 (head coverings) and 1 Cor 14 ("let the women keep silent") have a more significant chapter between them: 1 Corinthians 13...the far better way...love.Thanks for taking the time to write and encourage. Bless you as you teach!PS: On the "Notorious Corinthian Prostitutes"S. M. Baugh in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (1999): 443-460, noted that there is only one piece of evidence—literary—that Corinth had temple prostitutes, and that was based on Strabo writing hundreds of years after it supposedly existed.Submitted by Sue Bohlin:THANK YOU, Dr. Glahn, for all your hard work and the years of working on your Ph.D. to bring fascinating historical details, and thus greater understanding, to our reading of the scriptures.And thank you for posting an edited picture of Pompeiian erotica. I understand the paintings and sculptures were everywhere in Pompeii.Sort of like American TV these days.

Movie: Veil of Tears

The documentary "Veil of Tears" introduces viewers to India in its beauty and complexity. The film's special focus is on the women and their plight in a broad range of locales:

More than 50,000 female children are aborted every month in South Asia.Females are often the last to eat and the most likely to be illiterate.Girls are typically the first to work as child laborers and sometimes even sold to become one of 1.2 million child prostitutes.Young girls throughout Asia are ravenously abducted and forced into a life of prostitution with every agonizing day one step closer to an early death from AIDS.Widows in India bear the blame for their husbands’ deaths. They’re shunned by their communities, rejected by their families and forced into an inhumane lifestyle. Tens of thousands take their own lives just to end the pain.Every year in India, more than 7,000 women are doused with kerosene and burned to death—by their husbands. The wife’s crime: an insufficient dowry.Many women cannot be approached by men due to cultural customs, making their slim chance of hearing the Gospel even slimmer.
What can be done?

Trained women are the perfect solution to reach other women. Each female national who receives training already lives in Asia. In preparation for alleviating the plight of the poor, she has gone through three years of intensive training. The following advantages make her ideal to reach women in Asia:

She moves freely in areas restricted to outsiders or men and is accepted in good times and bad.She knows the cultural taboos instinctively.She has already mastered the language or a related dialect.She lives among the community, eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, and sharing the same cultural interests.She has a passion and burden to reach women in Asia.
In many Asian cultures, men and women rarely mix, so traditional male missionaries are severely limited in ministering to women. However, it is possible to send trained, dedicated women to reach the millions. And that's exactly what's happening. In this moving documentary, viewers meet some of them and learn how to have a part in their work.

The film treats the poor with dignity, showing their gorgeous smiling faces and their tears and leaves viewers filled with hope rather than despair.

Water: The Movie

I just watched Deepa Mehta's 2005 OSCAR-nominated film "Water." (Released nine years ago. I know. Don't judge. I was getting an advanced degree.)

After her husband dies of an illness, eight-year-old—yes, eight—Chuyia is forced to live out the rest of her days in a temple for Hindu widows, sharing life with fourteen other women and a cold-blooded headmistress. Through the trials of another widow, a prostitute named Kalyani (Lisa Ray) who's being courted chastely by a man from a higher caste (John Abraham), Chuyia learns the true restrictions of widowhood. The story of Ghandi is woven in, grounding this film in a historical setting. Those with special interest in women's advocacy will appreciate this story. Beautifully told and highly recommended. 117 minutes.

Nain: The Perfect Setting

The Tapestry blog at bible.org, to which I contribute, now has a new name: Engage. My latest post on Engage is about the widow of Nain and what the setting of her story reveals about a very important person.