My previous tribute to David Scholer has become the most read post I have ever written; most of the visits are from those searching for “David Scholer” and variations. This in itself is a tribute to a man who left an enormous impact on the world.

Blog posts about him keep popping up. I would just like to mention a few notable locations:

• Biblioblogger Judy Redman encountered David’s teaching during one of his trips to Australia
• Mark provides several links to sermons, articles, and the like on his blog (he also has several thoughts on David’s legacy himself–David officiated at Mark’s wedding)
• The LA Times has their obituary up for David [One note: they mention homosexuality on there, but I don't recall ever hearing him talk about homosexuality. I don't know if that is a mistake on their part or if I just missed it.]
• Fuller has a tribute to his legacy up as well
• You may want to check out two of his writings of interest: an article on his journey with women and ministry (what he is so known for) and a sermon on his struggle with cancer.

Last week, we lost a great New Testament scholar, seminary professor, advocate for women in ministry, and one of the kindest, most beautiful persons I have ever known. Though he lived longer than all expectations, David Scholer passed away on Friday morning after a six-year battle with colorectal cancer. David has had a tremendous influence upon me in my Fuller career and I feel so blessed to have known him. Without knowing it (and even though I took more classes with some other NT professors), David helped me find my “niche” in New Testament studies: social history. His interest in the area is evidenced in the volume he recently edited, Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge.

David was a lover of books and history. He often told us of his pursuit in finding rare books, particularly those of interest in biblical studies and women’s roles. In his courses, he not only focused on the biblical texts themselves, but also went through the history of interpretation as few people could. He was a noted bibliographer–I have been helped by his Basic Bibliographic Guide for New Testament Exegesis put out by the Fuller Seminary bookstore (see the list of his titles printed by them). He also produced the two volume Nag Hammadi Bibliography (volume one covering 1948-1969 and volume two covering 1970-1994). Some may know him for editing a popular version of the works of Philo.

I do know that David was working with Hendrickson Publishers on publishing his collection of writings on women in the New Testament and early Christianity. This collection has been used in his course, “Women, the Bible, and the Church,” for a number of years. It would truly be a shame if the collection was not made available to a wider audience. I hope we’ll be hearing more from Hendrickson in the near future on this!

I will deeply miss David’s generous spirit. He would always say hello as he passed by, even if he was clearly having a difficult time getting around. He would joke with me about sparring with him in class from time to time, particularly when I would show my Anabaptist leanings. When I had requested his recommendation for doctoral programs and he was not able to fulfill the request while he was in the hospital, he nevertheless composed a brief letter to be sent to all the programs to which I was applying. I will always be deeply grateful for such generosity. I hope my debt to him can be paid, at least in part, by trying to live out his legacy as a humble, but passionate academic educator.

Please remember David’s wife Jeannette, their daughters Emily and Abigail and their daughter’s families in the coming days and weeks. Memorial gifts may be made to the David M. Scholer Scholarship Fund at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182.

Other remembrances of David:

• Fuller Theological Seminary Professor Dies of Cancer
• Remembering Dr. David Scholer
• Prof. David Scholer Passes Into Glory
• Remembering David
• “Apparently David Scholer . . . has crossed the finish line. . . .”

And don’t miss last year’s story on him in the LA Times. If you’d like to get a glimpse of the man in a very moving sermon for Fuller’s 2008 Baccalaureate, you can find it at Fuller’s page on iTunes U. I may upload it to YouTube later, but for now, check it out at iTunes, under “All Seminary Chapel,” entitled “It Is About God . . . Not About Us (Baccalaureate 2008)”.

Update (Same Day): Fuller has posted an excellent tribute to the legacy of David Scholer on its website. If you’d like to keep track of blog posts on David, try this link.

When I was in high school, I spent a couple years as a fundamentalist. To be honest, apart from the horror I caused my parents and the damage I did to my friendships with “unbelievers,” I am in many ways happy that I had this time. Not only did my close-minded bibliolatry (that is, worshiping the Bible) lead me to the kinds of probing questions that now drive my career in academic biblical studies (in many ways, I am often disproving assumptions I once ardently held), but it also gives me an “insider’s” point of reference for speaking of those we call fundies. One point that often confused me in those days was the need to read the Bible “literally.” My pastor mentioned that we need to read the Bible “literally” rather than “allegorically.” Apparently, “liberals” (i.e., any person who was not a fundamentalist) read the Bible “allegorically.”

Hmmm. I thought to myself: Maybe I misunderstand what an allegory is. Is it not a story in which each character, figure, or event could function as a representation of some abstract idea? Perhaps some “liberal” Christians read certain texts symbolically, such as the resurrection as a symbol of some kind of hope, rather than a historical reality. But allegorically? This is an allegorical interpretation:

The table made from acacia wood is the Holy Scripture composed out of the bold words and deeds of the holy fathers. . . . This [table] has length, because it suggests to us perseverance in religious undertakings; width, because it suggests the amplitude of charity; height, because it suggests the hope of the everlasting reward. (Bede, On the Tabernacle [Holder trans.], 21)

That didn’t seem to be what “liberals” were doing. Indeed, I left fundamentalism when I started studying the Bible academically as an undergraduate, and after making the shift, I have never taken a text “allegorically” that I didn’t think was supposed to be taking allegorically. Revelation, for example, has allegorical elements. Many parables are something close to allegories. But, after my transition, what set me apart from my fundamentalist brothers and sisters was my desire to locate the biblical texts within their own social, cultural, and historical environment. In Paul’s interpretation of the Greco-Roman “household code” in Ephesians, for example, I saw something quite revolutionary. Paul was not going to “rock the boat” and change the lingo for headship and submission in marriage, but instead he redefined it. What does it mean for a husband to be the “head” of his wife? To love her sacrificially . . . not to “tell her what to do” or “make the tough decisions” or “be the spiritual leader.” The verse 5:21 sets up the passage: Submit to one another. He doesn’t need to spend much time saying how wives submit to their husbands because this is an accepted cultural reality. He does spend some time, though, showing how being a “head” in marriage can actually mean submission. So, which reading is more “literal”? Mine? Or the endless horrid wedding sermons on this passage that talk about the husband being the “spiritual leader” of the household? Actually, I feel that my reading more accurately considers what the text “literally” meant for the author and his readers/hearers. My fundamentalist friends understand the “literal” meaning (or the “plain sense”) of the passage to be how these particular words sound today.

Whomever we decide is more “literal,” the fact remains that “literalness” is not the main distinguishing characteristic here. The main difference is how willing one is to contextualize the words of the Bible within their original situation. True, many fundamentalists work with the original context and do scholarship in this area, but usually (forgive me for my broad generalizations) with the intent of proving their understanding of the “literal” meaning is correct. So, let’s drop this whole litmus test of who “reads the Bible literally.” This is a remnant of the Protestants reacting against what they saw as convoluted allegorical interpretations of parts of the Roman Catholic Church of the time (something like what I quoted above) [Note: I'm not dissing Catholics here]. But the dichotomy has changed! I read literal texts literally. I read symbolic texts symbolically. I try to make sense of the evidence that we have as best I can, without trying to “prove” some particular doctrine. I’m not claiming that I am without an ideology or that I am some saintly or infallible interpreter of the biblical text. No, but I try to be willing to let the biblical text and its environs challenge my ideology, to let the text read me. And I think that’s the difference.

Permitting all goes as planned, I will be taking my third doctoral seminar next quarter while at Fuller for my MDiv. It is a class on the “History of New Testament Scholarship” taught by Donald Hagner. That’s why I’m thinking about interpretation these days. It strikes me that the study of the history of scholarship is the interpretation of interpretation. It is difficult to wrap my mind around how many interpretive layers we have to deal with to think about the Bible, in its many forms. I think we would all do well to remember just how much interpretation is going on and hope that it gives us a little humility as we try to be our own interpreters.

This video is disturbing on so many levels, and yet funny at the same time. Interesting how they “Christianize” an offensive sexist rap song and turn it into an offensive Christian sexist rap song:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTYr3JuueF4]

Here are some notable lines:

• When a girl walks in with a KJV and a bookmark in Proverbs, you get stoked. Gotta name engraved, so you know this girl is saved.
• Ooh, mamma mia, you say you want koinonia? Well, bless me, bless me, and teach me about John Wesley.
• I ain’t talkin’ bout a paraphrase, cuz Paul wouldn’t use those anyways.
• So, I’m sittin’ here thinkin, “What if… I find me a girl that shows midriff?” You can have those bimbos, I keep those chicks that do devos.
• A word to the Christian sistahs, I can’t resist ya. I do God’s time wit’ ya. But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna pray till the break of day.
• Baby got it goin’ on, like the wife in Proverbs 31. We just might get engaged, when we finish readin’ this page. Cuz it’s worn, it’s torn, and I know that girl’s reborn.
• So, Ladies [Yeah?], ladies [yeah?], do you wanna save people from Hades? [yeah!] Then read it, till the pages fall out, even white preachers gotta shout.
• 39 + 27 = 66 books. And if you’re Catholic, there’s even more.

And a whipping motion at the end? What is that supposed to symbolize? I admit that this video makes me laugh and that’s primarily why I’m posting it. But the more I ponder it, the more I think this version is more offensive than the real version. Why? Because this version promotes the oppression of women under the religious auspices of an authoritative sacred text. Perhaps we can dismiss Sir Mix-a-lot, but the implication in this version (by “whiteboyDJ”) is that a woman is supposed to be pious and submissive because that’s what God has ordained and that’s what a holy Christian man wants.

Oh well, I guess I’m just a “weenie who gets the Bible on CD.”

[Update (6/7/07): My apologies for using the term "women bibliobloggers": explanation here]

The Biblical Studies Carnival 18 is up as of last night over at Deinde, written by Danny Zacharias. The “carnival” is an attempt to gather together all and highlight the best blogging posts and conversations regarding biblical studies. You can read an explanation with instructions by Tyler Williams, the coordinator of the carnival, and even see an article written by him about it in the Society of Biblical Literature Forum. Danny has done a wonderful job (although, there appear to be some strange line break formatting going on in part of the post). I told him in an email that I do not envy that job! I especially appreciated his coverage of the “One Act Play” on “Who Not to Cite,” a kerfuffle started by Jim West (responding to Mike Bird) who lambasted anything written by InterVarsity Press.

The first of the month also brings forth the Featured Blogger of the Month at biblioblogs.com. For June, that blogger is Rick Brannan, a Logos Bible Software employee and three way blogger of Ricoblog and PastoralEpistles.com, while also contributing to Logos Bible Software blog. Like Mark Goodacre, I was particularly interested in Rick’s thoughts on the “current state of blogging” (related to biblical studies, in particular). And I was also quite impressed to see that he has built his own kayak!

Taking a look at the featured bibliobloggers of blogging past, I was struck by the fact that there is only one woman (correct me if I’m missing any): Lesa Bellevie, whose blog (The Magdalene Review) is now apparently defunct. This does reflect the reality that the overwhelming majority of bibliobloggers are men (even greater than the percentage of scholars in biblical studies). Nevertheless, I have noticed that there are some great bloggers in our midst, who happen to be women and who deserve featured mention. April DeConick’s blog is particularly strong. In fact, looking at my “trends” on Google Reader, I have shared more of her posts in the past 30 days than any other blogger. Closely related to April’s work is Judy Redman’s blog. And another fairly recent addition is Angela Roskop Erisman. These last two are less frequent bloggers than April, but strong nonetheless. I see also that April links to Betty Adam’s blog, with which I am not familiar (but I’m now going to subscribe). Am I missing any women bibliobloggers? I’m probably going to kick myself for not mentioning somebody.

Also, I am worried that as a white male (even if I am lower on the academic totem pole than all the women I’ve mentioned), this might sound paternalistic. That’s perhaps the most sensitive issue with being a male feminist. I just think that we are still a long way off from being liberated from stereotypes and assumptions regarding gender roles, even in academia, and the topic should be discussed from time to time.

Update (Same Day): Jim West has just informed me that the dearth of female bibliobloggers has been discussed in the past. So I have taken a look to see. In the lead up to the Philly SBL conference (Nov 2005), Ed Cook raised the question about what should be discussed among bibliobloggers and this was one of the topics mentioned. Jim West [broken link] and Joe Cathey [broken link] responded. Mark Goodacre mentions two now defunct female bibliobloggers [Helenann Hartley and Jenee Woodard] and, while hoping not to fall into “gender-stereotyping,” asks “Is there something about the combination between the male-dominated academy and the nerdy, geeky male electronic world, that makes the computer academy particularly prone to this?”

Loren Rosen suggests, “Blogs feed our male egos like no other internet forum, and there’s certainly no point pretending (lying) otherwise, even if we also have positive motives for being involved in this network of shared learning.” Further, he says:

I’m suggesting that women share their interests with others in less self-aggrandizing ways. The “anonymous female” who responded to Mark Goodacre confirms this, when she says: “I think the main reason [I don’t blog] is that I am just not comfortable with the idea of telling random strangers what I think about things.” We men, by contrast, are very comfortable doing this.

Lest he be misrepresented, it is clear that Loren wants to highlight both “sharing” and “aggrandizing” motives for males who blog, but that it is just difficult to admit the latter. Finally, here Jim Davila rounds up the various blogging about the biblioblog meeting in Philly, much of which includes thoughts about the dearth of female biblioblogging. I don’t have time to read through all of it right now, but I did notice that Mark Goodacre thinks that we should at least draw attention to it. The last talk that I see (correct me if I’m wrong) was about a year and a half ago. I don’t think it’s wrong to raise the question within such a space of time, particularly in the fast-paced blogging world (of which I wasn’t even a part in 2005).

One thing that I notice is that I see plenty of women bloggers out there (take the contributors to Emerging Women, for instance, or many of those to the Beatitudes Society blog), just not so much in biblical studies. So, is it a lack of interest amidst female biblical studies scholars/informed-laypersons? Or a lack of welcome amidst those already in the biblioblogging world? Or something else? Or all of the above?

Also, as I type this, April comments of Rebecca Lesses’ blog–another that I’ll be adding to my subscriptions.

Update (6/3/07): See Judy Redman’s thoughtful response on her blog. Jim West also mentions the issue on his blog. Michael Westmoreland-White piggybacks on this issue a
nd reflects on women theology bloggers, which seems to be in better shape (numbers wise) than women bibliobloggers. Michael also encourages his readers, if they be female bibliobloggers or know of some, to “tell either Pat or Jim (the latter can get you more traffic)”. Hmmm…. well, I guess it’s true, Jim being the hub of biblioblogdom that he is! But, as the old Jesus saying goes, the higher trafficked blogs shall be last and the lesser frequented blogs shall be first, right?

Here’s a story on gender discrimination that was brought to my attention on Jim West’s blog. It is one of those situations that I am both in disbelief and yet unsurprised.

FORT WORTH, Texas – A theology professor at a prominent Southern Baptist seminary said officials told her to leave because women are biblically forbidden from teaching men. (Read more here . . . )

Update (1/28/07): You can find another reflection on this on the Women in Ministry blog. Through Cheryl Schatz’s blog there, I found a link to a detailed blogging about the controversy by Wade Burlson, a Southern Baptist pastor in Enid, Oklahoma. At the moment there are 352 comments in response to his blog post. He’s hit a nerve! As a matter of fact he has several posts dedicated to this controversy and the issue of women in ministry on his blog.

[Continuing the earlier discussion . . . ]

One of the most powerful, axiom-like single verses in the New Testament, Gal 3:28 certainly commands our attention for the biblical conversation:

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

In Galatians, Paul is of course most interested in the “Jew or Greek” pair from the statement, though the “slave or free” theme receives some attention as well. Paul asserts that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision count for anything” in Christ Jesus, but rather what matters is “faith working through love” (5:6) and “a new creation” (6:15). “You are no longer slaves,” he writes, “but a child” and an “heir, through God” (4:7). Again, “we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman” (4:31). This letter is about being truly free and not weighed down by “the curse of the law” (3:13).

But what of “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ)? Neither word occurs at any other point in the epistle. We can certainly see how there could be an issue of “freedom” in the case of men and women, but without any other mention of male-female relations, it seems oddly out of place. Paul is clearly not making a detailed argument here specifically for the equality of men and women, but a powerful statement nonetheless. There are only two other uses of this phrase in the NT (Matt 19:4; Mk 10:6), both direct references to the creation account. In the Greek version of the book of Genesis (from the Septuagint, also known as LXX), most significantly in the creation account, the same pair occurs 10 times (its only use in the LXX). God creates humanity in the image of God, “male and female” (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ) God creates them (1:27; cf. 5:2). That Paul explicitly uses “and” (καὶ) for this pair in Gal 3:28, diverging from his use of “or” (οὐδὲ) in the other two, suggests that he is calling the reader’s memory to the creation account of Genesis.

But why? Clearly Paul does not desire to cancel out the “image of God” from humanity. What else could explain his use here? Some complementarians argue that since Paul is here referring to a creation ordinance, it does not have the same implications as the first two pairs. The first two relate to racial, ethnic, and social divisions that were not a part of God’s good creation and therefore can be challenged in the present social reality. “Male and female,” on the other hand, according to the traditionalists, only refers to a removal of distinction between the two in the realm of salvation. Of course, there is no distinction between men and women in salvation, they say, but this does not have social implications (cf. Scholer, 125). This argument stems from the traditionalist reading of Genesis 1-2 in which social distinctions between men and women are inherent in God’s creation itself (i.e., they are God’s intention).

Another traditionalist emphasis on this verse is highlighting its lack of functional meaning. There is no reference to any specific office of ministry in the context of Galatians. Furthermore, the traditionalists tend to count texts irrelevant to this discussion when they do not explicitly affirm a woman’s role in the office of either ἐπίσκοπος (overseer/bishop) or πρεσβύτερος (presbyter/elder). In this way, when the egalitarians point to principles found within texts such as Gal 3:28, the complementarians dismiss them from the “women in ministry” discussion since they do not have specific mention of predetermined ministerial positions (cf. Scholer, 124-5).

The problem with this last argument, however, is that the leadership offices of the church were far different in New Testament times than they are today. When we narrow our definitions by titles, we risk anachronistically reading our present day understandings of those titles into the biblical text. Instead, we should look to the themes and principles found in these biblical passages, while not neglecting their context, and apply them to our own contemporary situation.

The first argument (the appeal to creation-mandated social distinctions) must be addressed with an assessment of the opening chapters of Genesis themselves. That I will leave to my next post in this series.

My final hurrah for David Scholer’s class is a 15-20 page paper outlining my thoughts coming out of the class. I figure it’d be a good thing to do some pieces of it on this blog to get me going. It’s supposed to be a very personal wrestling match with the texts and personal experiences. Here’s the assignment:

Write a position paper (15-20 pages, including notes) on the role and status of Women in the New Testament and in the church today. It is assumed that this paper is based on class lectures and discussions, the New Testament (and Old Testament as appropriate), all required texts (especially those of Belleville, Doriani, Mickelsen, Pierce/Groothuis and Scholer) and any other reading and experience of the student. The paper should make frequent and appropriate mention of relevent biblical texts and clearly reflect use of the required reading. Due: December 6 before 5:00 p.m. to David M. Scholer’s office; 50% of the course grade.

In our class, Dr. Scholer emphasized that the issue of women in the ministry comes down to an hermeneutical approach. The complementarians (or traditionalists) hinge their argument on 1 Tim 2, while the egalitarians (or evangelical feminists) place Gal 3:28 in the place of hermeneutical honor. Complementarians see 1 Tim 2 as a clear text and therefore worthy of guiding the discussion. From their point of view, there is no arguing with the fact that Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” (2:12). Some feminists would agree that this text is clear; that is, the text is clearly oppressive to women and therefore is unacceptable. Evangelical egalitarians such as Dr. Scholer, on the other hand, feel that no biblical text can simply be thrown out of the canon and instead suggest that this text has a different primary meaning. Scholer does not call it an easy text, but he does point out some tricky points for the complementarians argument (which I’ll get to in another post). Gal 3:28, which proclaims that there is “no longer . . . male and female,” is seen by egalitarians as a principial text, one that announces a clear (gospel) principle that colors the whole conversation. It is the ideal of the new creation. The reason we have difficult New Testament texts on this issue at all is an indication that Paul and other NT authors had one foot in the new creation and one foot in the old. They lived with the ideals of the gospel liberty within them, but existed within a patriarchal and androcentric culture.

Interestingly, Christina (my wife) and I have been watching Shakespeare in Love one bit at a time. [PLOT SPOILER] We’ve just watched the point when Viola has shockingly appeared on stage as Juliet in an era when only men played women and women would never be seen on stage. In fact, Mr. Tilney attempts to shut down the play and arrest the players for the very reason that a woman was among the actors. But this is only after Viola has given a stirring, beautiful performance as Juliet and the crowd is awestruck by the wonder of the play. Queen Elizabeth prevents the arrests by insisting that Viola is in fact Master Thomas Kent, a man, and thus no violations occurred. Elizabeth says: “Yes, the illusion is remarkable and your error, Mr. Tilney, is easily forgiven, but I know something of a woman in a man’s profession, yes, by God, I do know about that.” In this play, the people have seen that the woman player has done a magnificent job of filling in for a man, but it must be done with a wink and a nod. The tides of culture cannot be changed in an instant, even if the ability of women has just been proven.

Christians who view women’s roles in traditional ways must deny women’s pastoral/leadership abilities exist, find an alternate explanation for them, or grant they exist but only for certain (limited) roles. For example, when lauding the great strength of Perpetua, the 2nd-3rd century woman martyr, Augustine of Hippo wonders how Perpetua, a woman, could do such great things? He concludes that she was a woman on the outside, but a man on the inside (Scholer, class lecture 11/29/2006). As a matter of fact, Perpetua envisions herself as a man when she dreams of taking on Satan in the arena (“My clothes were stripped off, and suddenly I was a man,” Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis , 10:7). It calls to memory the last verse of the gnostic text, The Gospel of Thomas, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven’” (114). The assumption was that women did not have the same abilities or virtues as men. The explanation for the appearance of those abilities and virtues: these particular women (the exceptions to the rule) have transcended their femaleness and have attained inner maleness.

It would be a rare complementarian these days that would argue, publicly at least, that women truly are not capable of doing the same things as men. Instead, the primary arguments are made theologically and biblically. Only men can be senior pastors, for example, because that’s the way that God made humanity, that’s what it says in the Bible. Are there women that are capable of doing it? Sure. But that is not the way it is supposed to be, they would say. This is why the conversation, if there is to be one, must take place on biblical grounds. If we toss aside the Bible, we make our arguments irrelevant to Bible-believing Christians. If we are Bible-believing (and Bible-following) Christians, we must wrestle with even the most difficult texts. There must be no proof text mudslinging here.

So I’m in the thick of end-of-the-quarter work and I have one more reflection on SBL in the works, but David Scholer handed out this top ten list in class yesterday and I just have to share it:

Dave’s Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football games and cricket matches shows this.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract the women worshipers.

4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes otherwise than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important to the life of the church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

This was presented by David M. Scholer on February 20, 1998, at the Fuller Follies [at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA]. It was taken, with small modifications, from a November 24, 1997 internet communication from W. Ward and Laurel Gasque [it is not known whether they are the authors].

For our “Women, the Bible, and the Church” course, Dr. David Scholer has a fantastic resource in a collection of many of his essays on the issue of women and ministry. If you’re interested in the issue, I’m not sure there is a better book covering the significant biblical texts along with some of the history and contemporary issues. Even though it’s not published widely, it is available if you go through the Fuller Seminary Bookstore and search for “Scholer” under author. The work is entitled “Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament” (a mouthful) and the current ISBN is “0000599719″ (although I imagine that might change as new editions get printed for future classes at Fuller). My version is the fifteenth printing from December 2005. In its introduction, Dr. Scholer says:

This is a collection of twenty-one articles of mine, two on hermeneutics in general (Chapters 1-2), one on early church organization and governance (Chapter 3), sixteen on women in the New Testament (Chapters 4-18), one on women in early church history (Chapter 19), and two on the NIV inclusive language controversy (Chapters 20-21). The articles included here are those I deem most helpful out of my writings for my teaching and lecturing on women and ministry in the New Testament. I regret the fact that I have no articles here on the two crucial texts in 1 Corinthians (11.2-16; 14:34-35); I hope to remedy this in the not-too-distant future.

All of these articles were previously published except for Chapter 14 ["Euodia and Synthyche: Bishops at Philippi?"]. The original publication date is given at the beginning of each chapter and is also found in the list of my publications on women in the New Testament (pages 1-6). Permission has been obtained in every case for reproduction of these articles in this form for use in my teaching.

I hope that this collection makes it into a bona fide published book by a major publisher because it is a phenomenal resource. One more recent article that is a general overview of Dr. Scholer’s history with the issue from the last fifty years was published in Christian Feminism Today, formerly known as the EEWC Update: “My Fifty Year Journey with Women and Ministry in the New Testament and in the Church Today.” That gives you a sense of why a man, this man in particular, is teaching a class on “Women, the Bible, and the Church.” If you’re interested in more of his personal story, you can read it in the LA Times story that was done on his battle with cancer: “Living With Cancer, a Scholar Inspires Students” (reproduced on Fuller Seminary’s website).