By Leroy Seat, Ph.D.

This essay is a revised and enlarged, English version of a public lecture given at Seinan Gakuin University on May 23, 1998. On five consecutive Saturdays, five faculty members from the Department of Theology conducted open lectures on the general theme of “The Bible and the Present—Searching for the Significance of the Bible for Us Today.”

Why This Topic?

This topic was chosen because one of the lingering theological problems today is an adequate understanding of the place of women in society and in the Church. This is a serious problem especially in Japan and other Asian countries, for there is a long, deeply entrenched tradition of danson johi (男尊女卑、respect for males/disrespect for females). The same type of problem, however, is found in the West as well. A professor of Christian ethics in a seminary in the United States has recently asserted: “As we enter the Third Millennium, perhaps no issue is of greater importance for the Christian community than male and female roles and relationships” (Trull, p. 190).

The Present Situation in Japanese Society

In this cursory survey of the present situation in Japanese society, brief attention will be given to the situation first within society at large and then within the Church in Japan.

The situation in society at large. Each May 5, “Constitution Day” (憲法記念日) is celebrated as a national holiday in Japan, and equal rights for men and women with no discrimination because of gender are guaranteed by the Japanese constitution. The equality of men and women, however, is not yet a reality in many ways. According to the May 27, 1998, Japanese edition of Newsweek, a recent survey of the status of women indicates that among the eight countries surveyed Japan has, for example, the lowest percentages of women receiving higher education, serving in the lower house of the Diet (Congress), and working in managerial positions in the business world.[1]

The situation here at Seinan Gakuin is indicative of the situation in society at large. There clearly is male/female equality for students seeking admission—and in the student population of the university, there are now actually more women than men. But it is quite a different situation among the faculty members. In October 1998, the faculty and staff were asked to make nominations for a new university president. A list of qualified candidates on campus (full professors who are Christians and under the age of 66) was made public—and on this list of 22, there was not even one woman. Moreover, there are no women deans at the present time, and neither are there any women on the faculty of the Department of Theology. While this is an example of only one school system, it can be assumed that the current situation in Japanese society as a whole is not greatly different.

The situation in the Church. What about the situation within the Church in Japan? There is, arguably, considerably more equality in the Church than in society at large, but a male-dominant/female-submissive mentality still exists. There is a growing number of women pastors, but the percentage is quite small. The situation among Baptists here in Japan is, to be sure, far more equitable than among Southern Baptists in the United States—and more will be said about this in the following section—but full equality has not yet been realized.

The Biblical Dispute in the United States

Even though this essay is mostly about the situation here in Japan, attention will be turned now, briefly, to a current Biblical and theological debate in the United States. One of the main theological disputes going on in the U. S. today, especially among conservative Christians, is the place of women in the Church and in society. The nature of this dispute can be grasped, to a certain extent, by looking at two groups that promote opposing positions.

Christians for Biblical Equality. On the one hand, there is an organization called “Christians for Biblical Equality” (CBE). This group was formed in 1987 by Dr. Catherine Kroeger, and it identifies itself as follows:

Christians for Biblical Equality is an organization of Christians who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28.

The mission of CBE, then, is summarized in the following words: “We equip believers to serve as Christ’s agents of reconciliation by affirming the Biblical truth of equality and promoting communities of wholeness.”

In 1989 CBE published their position paper called “Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality,” and it is translated from English into Japanese as well as nine other languages. The Statement begins with this assertion: “The Bible teaches the full equality of men and women in Creation and in Redemption,” and it goes on to affirm the full equality of women and men in the community (the church) and in the home.

Christians for Biblical Equality, which belongs to the National Association of Evangelicals, has a 13-member Board of Directors, nine (69%) of whom are women, and a 26-member Board of Reference, and also nine (35%) of these are women.[2]

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In direct response to the formation of CBE, “The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW) was also formed in 1987. The purpose of this group is stated as follows: “The purpose of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth Biblical teaching about the complementary differences between men and women, created equal in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the Church.”

In 1991 the CBMW published a large (566-page) book entitled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.[3] Appendix 2 of this book contains “The Danvers Statement,” the main position paper of the CBMW, which was adopted at a meeting in Danvers, MA, in December 1987.

Among other things, the Danvers Statement asserts:

6. Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse. . . . In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands’ authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands’ leadership.


In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men.

CBMW is governed by 25 Council Members, five (20%) of whom are women, and by a 48-member Board of Reference, five (10.4%) of whom are women—but four of these five are on the Board with their husbands.

The situation in the Southern Baptist Convention. Since there has been a long relationship between Seinan Gakuin and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in the United States, current trends within the SBC will now be mentioned briefly. The current leadership of the SBC and the administrators of the SB seminaries are very much weighted toward the CBMW and against CBE. Of the 25 members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, four (16%) teach at SB or SB-related seminaries, two in the field of Biblical theology and one in the field of Christian ethics. Moreover, one former president and the current president of the SBC and the wives of both serve on the CBMW’s 48-member Board of Reference.

Further, at some, if not all, of the SB seminaries now, a prospective faculty member has to reject the idea of women pastors in order to be seriously considered for a faculty position. For example, the following footnote was recently added to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s “Statement of Purpose”: “The Seminary maintains, consistent with Convention resolution and agency policy, that, while a wonderful range of strategic and effectual ministry is open to both men and women, the pastor of a biblical congregation must be male.”

There are some exceptions to this leaning toward the CBMW position, however. Dr. Millard Erickson, professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, is a member of CBE’s Board of Reference, and recently Dr. Joe E. Trull, professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a fine Christian ethics book affirming the equality of men and women—and toward the end of this essay a portion of that book will be cited.

The nearest thing Southern Baptists have to a creed is the Baptist Faith and Message, which was adopted in 1925 and revised only once (in 1963) until last year. In the June 1998 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, however, a section on the family was added to the Baptist Faith and Message. The third of the four paragraphs of the addition reads as follows:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

While the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, all Convention employees are expected to agree with it, and recently two professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary resigned rather than sign a statement saying they agreed with the revised Baptist Faith and Message.[4]

The Biblical Basis for the Idea of Male-Dominance/Female-Submission

It seems clear that a position which holds that a husband is supposed to be the “head” of his wife and that a wife should always be submissive to her husband as well as a position which emphasizes “complementarity” (a concept widely used by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) rather than “equality” is a male-dominance/female-submission position. “Complementarity” does not sound so bad, perhaps, but it includes the following three concepts: hierarchy, “chain of command,” and male “headship” which are clearly opposed to any idea of full equality. What is the Biblical basis for such a position?

Larry Christenson (b. 1928) is a Lutheran pastor who wrote a best-selling book with the title The Christian Family. “Part One” of this two-part book is entitled “God’s Order for the Family,” and the first page summarizes how “God has ordered the family according to the principle of ‘headship.’” According to Christianson’s reading of the Bible, (1 Corinthians 11:3 and Colossians 3:10), Christ is the “Head” of the husband and the Lord of the family, the husband is the “Head” of the wife and the chief authority over the children, and the wife is the “helpmeet” to the husband and the secondary authority over the children” (p. 17).

How to be Happy Though Married is the title of a book by Tim LaHaye, who at the time the book was published in 1968 was pastor of a Baptist church and president of Christian Heritage College in San Diego. Chapter six of this book is called “Six Keys to Marital Happiness.” The second of the six “keys” (after “maturity” and before “love,” “communication,’ “prayer,” and “Christ”) is “submission” (pp. 105~110.). In this section, LaHaye asserts: “One of the great hindrances to a happy home today is the false notion that a woman does not have to subject herself to her husband” (105). LaHaye continues:

The Christian woman must be in subjection to her husband! Whether she likes it or not, subjection is a command of God and her refusal to comply with this command is an act of disobedience” (p. 106). The Scriptures used to back these statements are Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:22~4, and 33, and 1 Peter 3:1-2.

The Old Testament Perspective

The primary Old Testament passages that support the idea of male dominance and female submission are found primarily in the following two passages from Genesis.

Genesis 2:18~23. The following words are part of the familiar creation story:

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”[5]

With the creation of the male being first and that of the female secondary, and with the purpose of the female’s creation as a “helper” of the male, this passage is widely used to stress male dominance and female submission.

Genesis 3:6, 16. Following close upon the creation of woman is the account of the first human sin with the woman playing a primary role in this drama. First, there is the sin of disobedience: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (v. 6). And then comes the punishment: “To the woman he [the LORD] said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’” (v. 16).

Even though the latter words are indicative of God’s punishment, they are, interestingly enough, interpreted by some as being normative and expressive of God’s intention with regard to the relationship between husbands and wives.

The New Testament Perspective

The following four New Testament passages are most often used to support the idea of male dominance/female submission.

1 Corinthians 11:3~10. In dealing with concrete problems which had arisen in the Church at Corinth, the apostle Paul penned the following words to the troublesome church:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head— it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

This passage seems to call for female submission to men. But it also makes it quite clear that women ought to have some head covering when they worship, a practice that has been regulatory in the Roman Catholic Church but almost completely ignored in Protestant churches.

1 Corinthians 14:33~35. Even more than the previous passage, the following words from the same letter seem to indicate the necessity of female submission in the church.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22~24. The following words are also widely used by those who see Biblical support for the idea of male dominance and female submission.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

This passage has long been read in many of the Christian wedding services conducted both here in Japan and in other countries. These verses are widely used in Japan since they are included in the wedding section of the United Church of Christ’s Order of Service (『式文』) book, and, as will be pointed out later, it is significant that the reading begins with verse 22 rather than with verse 21.

1 Timothy 2:11~14. This is the final passage to be considered in this section, and these words have been widely used to prohibit women from becoming pastors.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

More than any other verse, 1 Timothy 2:12 has been used to bar women from becoming pastors or taking other places of leadership in the church. The authors of I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in the Light of Ancient Evidence state the matter in this way:

If there is one verse in the Bible more than any other which is used to disbar women from proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ and exercising their talents for his glory, it is 1 Timothy 2:12. . . . On the basis of [the King James Version] translation of verse 12 women are denied a vote in church affairs, rejected as teachers of adult Bible classes, kept home from the mission field, disenfranchised from the duties and privileges of leadership in the body of Christ, and forbidden the use of their God-given talents for leadership (Kroeger and Kroeger, p. 129).

The Biblical Basis for Male-Female Equality

In the light of the above passages, what can be said in support of male-female equality?

The Old Testament Perspective

Just as Genesis is used to support the idea of male dominance, the following passages in Genesis are used to support just the opposite, that is, the idea of male-female equality.

Genesis 1:26-27. The so-called Priestly account of creation, which includes the following words, is taken as normative for understanding the proper relationship between men and women.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

According to this passage, males and females were equally created in the likeness of God, and there is no hint of any over/under relationship here. Partly based upon the writings of Karl Barth, Paul Jewett strongly emphasized this passage more than 20 years ago, and emphasis on this passage continues to be widely used to rebut the case for male superiority which relies heavily upon the second chapter of Genesis.

Genesis 5:1-2. Although it is largely a repetition of the previous passage, these beginning words of the fifth chapter of Genesis are also considered a clear statement of male-female equality.

This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man.’

The New Testament Perspective

Of the many New Testament passages that might be cited, the following three can be considered the most important for making the case for equality between the sexes.

1 Corinthians 11:11-12. In responding to the passages in 1 Corinthians which seem to call for female submission, the following words certainly appear to make quite a different emphasis.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Rather than an over/under relationship between men and women, these words suggest mutual dependence and seem to indicate that both are equal before their Creator.

Galatians 3:26~28. Reference was made to these significant verses when the group known as Christians for Biblical Equality was introduced.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Arai Sasagu, one of the leading New Testament scholars in Japan, rightly points out that Galatians 3:28 is often cited in referring to Paul’s positive statements about the place of women, and he goes on to say that this verse is like a “Magna Charta” of women’s liberation (p. 218).[6]

Ephesians 5:21. In response to the emphasis made on Ephesians 5:22~24 by those who believe the Bible teaches female submission, those who stress equality emphasize that those verses must be interpreted in the light of verse 21, which says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Originally, the Bible was not divided into chapters and verses such as we have today. And, of course, the paragraph divisions and titles were also not a part of the original Bible. In many Bible translations and editions, when the paragraphs were separated, Ephesians 5:22 was made the beginning of a new paragraph—as in the Colloquial Japanese Version (口語訳), and in some Bibles a new heading is given at the beginning of that verse. But there is good reason to consider verse 21 as the beginning of the new section. In fact, in Greek the verb for “submit” does not even appear in verse 22. Thus, ironically, verse 21, which should be considered the primary principle of the proper relationship between husband and wife, is often not even read at weddings in Japan!

Biblical Exegesis which Recognizes Male-Female Equality

In bringing this essay to a close, attention will be turned first to the problem of Biblical hermeneutics and then to a suggested list of hermeneutical principles for proper Biblical interpretation.

The Problem of Biblical Hermeneutics

Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the methodological principles of interpretation of the Bible. The goal of hermeneutics is avoiding eisegesis in order that proper exegesis can be made.

The problem of eisegesis. Much Bible interpretation, unfortunately, is reading preconceived ideas into Bible passages rather than drawing out the intended meaning of those passages. Thus, eisegesis often is the result of Biblical interpretation being used to protect power and privilege.[7]

The inevitable subjectivity of Biblical interpretation must be recognized. As Harvey Cox and many other contemporary theologians have recognized and emphasized, where one stands determines what one sees. And as this writer has emphasized in previous essays in this journal, one’s presuppositions determine one’s knowledge. In this vein, one of Japan’s leading feminist theologians, Kinukawa Hisako (絹川久子), raises this question: who do you protect by taking the position you do?[8] Much Biblical interpretation made by males, it can be argued, is tainted by eisegesis, the reading of preconceived ideas into the Biblical passages in order to protect the position of male superiority.

The problem of adequate exegesis. Now another difficult problem arises: how can adequate exegesis be done? How can the intended meaning of the Bible be correctly understood? What are the pivotal passages that are universally applicable, and how can those passages that are limited to a particular culture at a particular time be determined? These questions must be settled by theological considerations, not just Biblical ones. Biblical studies are not enough; there must be Biblical and systematic theology as well.

In their two-page explanation of “Men, Women & Biblical Equality,” the Christians for Biblical Equality state:

We believe that Scripture is to be interpreted holistically and thematically. We also recognize the necessity of making a distinction between inspiration and interpretation: inspiration relates to the divine impulse and control whereby the whole canonical Scripture is the Word of God; interpretation relates to the human activity whereby we seek to apprehend revealed truth in harmony with the totality of Scripture and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is a good statement of how the effort to achieve adequate exegesis should be attempted, as well as how it should be recognized that all exegesis is a human activity and, therefore, always possibly flawed and never perfect.

The problem of reading the Bible from a feminist perspective. There are, of course, many Western theologians who could be cited here, and some of those are listed in the bibliography. In Japan, though, two noteworthy feminist theologians are Yamaguchi Noriko (山口里子) and Kinugawa Hisako (絹川久子). The former has an article entitled「フェミニストの視点から聖書を読む」(Reading the Bible from a Feminist Viewpoint) in the April 1998 issue of『現代思想』(Contemporary Thought). Among the latter’s many writings is「聖書テキストのフェミニスト解釈(Feminist Interpretation of the Biblical Text) in the third volume of『現代聖書講座』(Contemporary Bible Lectures). Consider the following three assertions in Ms. Kinukawa’s article, which begins with these words:

No texts or interpretations can exist without the viewpoint of those related to them.

First, in the history of both texts and their interpretation, we see the projection of patriarchal thought as their context. Second, within the history of texts and their interpretation there exists those who are hidden and oppressed, and we understand women as typical of these. Third, we take a position which reevaluates critically the historical context by which texts and their interpretation are understood (p. 255).

At the conclusion of her insightful essay, Ms. Kinukawa reaffirms: “It is impossible for texts to exist without a historical, political, and social context” (p. 277). Further,

Just as it is not possible for there to be viewpoint-free texts, so there are no historical interpretations of texts which are viewpoint-free. This is the same as the declaration that it is meaningless to assert that there is objectivity that is not based upon presuppositions. A critical stance has given rise to a feminist “hermeneutics of suspicion” toward the traditional, historical, and critical interpretations of texts which have been historical interpretations made “by” dominant males, “for” males, and “concerning” males. This hermeneutic also poses a threat which touches the traditional authority of Biblical texts (278).

The above paragraphs merely “scratch the surface” of the important issue of feminist interpretation of the Bible. It must be recognized, however, that one does not have to be a female to make, or at least to be sympathetic with, a feminist interpretation of the Bible, as is seen in the next section.

Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics

Joe E. Trull, the professor of Christian ethics at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary introduced previously, is the author of a recent book entitled Walking in the Way. One section of this book is called “Gender Equality” (pages 190~211). In this section, Professor Trull draws the following conclusions from the teachings of the Bible concerning gender relations and human equality, and, undoubtedly, these conclusions would be generally affirmed by Christians for Biblical Equality as well as Ms. Kinukawa and other feminist theologians and Bible scholars.

1.   In the beginning both male and female were created in the image of God and were complementary to each other.

2.   The Old Testament reveals the effects of sin on gender relationships: a male-dominated culture relegated women to a secondary role in religion and society.

3.   Jesus was radically counterculture in His treatment of women, as He reversed the curse experienced by males and females.

4.   As God’s ultimate revelation, Jesus’ treatment of women is determinative—all other passages about women must be interpreted in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

5.   Males and females enjoy full equality in Christ and are joint heirs of the spiritual gifts given to God’s people.

6.   The emerging church rejected both the traditional subordinate model and the extreme egalitarian model, affirming the servant model in all human relationships.

7.   The early church accepted some accommodation to Jewish and gentile culture in order to uphold vital Christian values.

8.  Faithful biblical interpretation requires the Christian to distinguish between culturally time-bound practices and timeless Christian principles (p. 201).

These eight points are an amazingly concise and admirably correct set of hermeneutical principles, and they are worthy of being followed by all who seek to understand the Bible’s true teaching about the relationship of men and women.


It is the conclusion of this writer that, in one word, No, the Bible does not teach the concept of respect for males/disrespect for females (男尊女卑、danson johi) or male dominance and female submission. The Bible, properly understood, teaches male-female equality before God and in the church. This needs to be recognized and made known widely both because it is the correct understanding of the Bible and because it is a part of the Gospel that needs to be proclaimed to the world. It has been argued that this message of equality was one significant impetus for the great growth of the Church in its early years. Similarly, freedom from discrimination based on gender should also be an attractive and appealing aspect of the Gospel for contemporary women in Japan and around the world.

Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion at the University of Washington, is the author of The Rise of Christianity, which was published in 1996 and introduced, among other places, in the August 26, 1996, issue of Newsweek (September 11 issue in the Japanese version). At the beginning of his fifth chapter, which is entitled “The Role of Women in Christian Growth,” Stark states:

Amidst contemporary denunciations of Christianity as patriarchal and sexist, it is easily forgotten that the early church was so especially attractive to women that in 370 the emperor Valentinian issued a written order to Pope Damasus I requiring that Christian missionaries cease calling at the homes of pagan women. . . . Christianity was unusually appealing because within the Christian subculture women enjoyed far higher status than did women in the Greco-Roman world at large (p. 95).

Stark summarizes his four conclusions at the end of the chapter on the role of women, the second being as follows: “Christian women enjoyed substantially higher status within the Christian subcultures than pagan women did in the world at large. This was especially marked vis-à-vis gender relations within the family, but women also filled leadership positions within the church” (p. 128.)

Perhaps one of the reasons that many more women than men in Japan are Christians at this time is because the Gospel itself has been more attractive to women. There are still, however, many women who continue to suffer from discrimination and various forms of oppression. For all these, the Bible can and should be used for liberation. Thus, one important way the Bible is significantly related to problems of today is in its assurance to women that its message, properly understood, is on their side in their struggle to be free from all forms of oppression and discrimination.


    [1] The other countries surveyed were Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and the United States.

     [2] Detailed information about CBE can be obtained from their website: www.ChrBibEq. org.

     [3] This book in its entirety can be read on—or printed off from—the Internet, and information about CBMW can be obtained from

     [4] This matter is reported, among other places, in the December 7, 1998, issue of Christianity Today.

     [5] All of the Bible citations in this essay are taken from the New International Version.

     [6] Jewett had previously talked about this verse as the “Magna Carta” in his 1975 book (pp. 142~7.)

     [7] This is a potential problem within the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, as 80% of the Council are men.

     [8] 「だれを擁護する立場に立つのか。」(『女性の視点で聖書を読む』49)

Selected Bibliography

Arai Sasagu (荒井 )

1988       『新約聖書の女性観』(The New Testament’s Concept of Women ). Iwanami Shoten.

Ariarajah, S. Wesley

1996       Did I Betray the Gospel? The Letters of Paul and the Place of Women. World Council of Churches.

Barth, Karl

1961           “Man and Woman,” Church Dogmatics III, 4. T. & T. Clark. Pages 116~240.

Christ, Carol P., and Judith Plaskow, editors

1979       Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion. Harper & Row.

Christenson, Larry

1970       “God’s Order for Wives,” The Christian Family. Bethany Fellowship.

Flynn, Leslie B.

1996        My Daughter a Preacher!?! [Privately published]

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler

1983           In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christians Origins. Crossroad.

1986       Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Beacon.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler

1992       But She Said: The Rhetoric of Feminist Interpretation for Liberation. Beacon.

1993       Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of Liberation. Crossroad.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, editor

1995       Searching the Scriptures. Volume One: A Feminist Introduction. Crossroad.

Howell, John C.

1979       Equality and Submission in Marriage. Broadman.

Iino Kaori (飯野かおり)

1989           「フェミニスト神学」(Feminist Theology), in Kanda Kenji et al., editors,『総説 実践神学』(General Introduction: Practical Theology). United Church of Christ in Japan. Pages 344~361.

Jewett, Paul K

1975          Man as Male and Female: A Study of Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View. Eerdmans.

1996       “The Image and Sexual Polarity: ‘Male and Female He Created Them,’” Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human: A Neo-Evangelical Theology. Eerdmans. Pages 131~350.

Johnson, Elizabeth A.

1993       She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. Crossroad.

King, Ursula, editor

1994       “The Bible as a Source of Empowerment for Women,” Feminist Theology from the Third World: A Reader. Orbis Books. Pages 181~242.

Kinukawa Hisako (絹川久子)

1987           『聖書のフェミニズム』(The Feminism of the Bible). Jordan Press.

1994           Women and Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist Perspective. Orbis

1995           『女性の視点で聖書を読む』(Reading the Bible from a Female Viewpoint). United Church of Christ in Japan.

1996           「聖書テキストのフェミニスト解釈」(Feminist Interpretation of Biblical Texts) in Kida Ken’ichi and Arai Sasagu, editors. Contemporary Bible Lectures. Volume 3: The Thought of the Bible and the Present Age. United Church of Christ in Japan. Pages 255~279.

Kinukawa Hisako (絹川久子)

1997        『女性たちとイエス――相互行為的視点からマルコ福音書を読み直す』(Jesus and Women: Re-reading the Gospel of Mark from the Standpoint of Mutual Activity). United Church of Christ in Japan.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., et al., editors

1995       Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Baker.

Kroeger, Richard Clark, and Catherine Clark Kroeger

1992       I Suffer Not a Women: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Baker.

Kroeger, Katherine Clark, and James R. Beck, editors

1996       Women, Abuse, and the Bible: How Scriptures Can Be Used to Hurt or Heal. Baker.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, editor  

1993       Freeing Theology: The Essentials of Theology in Feminist Perspective. HarperSanFrancisco.

LaHaye, Tim

1968        How to Be Happy Though Married. Tyndale House.

Marshall, Molly T.

1996       “Women’s Status in Ministry Equals That of Men,” in Charles W. Deweese, editor, Defining Baptist Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First Century. Providence House. Pages 198~205.

Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey

1977        Women, Men, and the Bible. Abingdon.

Moltmann-Wendel, Elisabeth

1982       The Women Around Jesus. Crossroad.

1986       A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey: Perspectives on Feminist Theology.

Newsom, Carol A., and Sharon H. Ringe, editors

1992       The Women’s Bible Commentary. Westminster John Knox

Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, editors

1991       Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway.

Pobee, John S., and Barbel von Wartenberg-Potter, editors

1986       New Eyes for Reading: Biblical and Theological Reflections by Women from the Third World. WCC.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford

1972       Liberation Theology: Human Hope Confronts Christian History and American Power. Paulist.

1983           Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Beacon.

Russell, Letty M.

1974       Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective. Westminster.

Russell, Letty M., editor

1985       Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Basil Blackwell.

Russell, Letty M., and J. Shannon Clarkson, editors

1996       Dictionary of Feminist Theologies. Westminster John Knox.

Scanzoni, Letha, and Nancy Hardesty

1974       All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation. Word. Pages 95~128. [The third revised edition was published by Eerdmans in 1992.]

Schneiders, Sandra M.

1993       “The Bible and Feminism: Biblical Theology,” in Catherine Mowry LaCugna, editor, Freeing Theology. Pages 31~57.

Scholer, David M.

1996       “The Evangelical Debate over Biblical ‘Headship,’” in Catherine Clark Kroeger and James R. Beck, editors, Women, Abuse, and the Bible, pages 28~57.

Schottroff, Luise, Silvia Schroer, and Marie-Theres Wacker

1998                Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective. Translated by Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt. Fortress.

Stark, Rodney

1996       “The Role of Women in Christian Growth,” The Rise of Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. Pages 95~128.

Swartley, Willard M.

1983       Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation. Herald.

Trull, Joe E.

1997       “Gender Equality,” Walking in the Way: An Introduction to Christian Ethics. Broadman & Holman. Pages 190~211.

Yamaguchi Noriko (山口里子)

1998       「フェミニストの視点から聖書を読む」(Reading the Bible from a Feminist Viewpoint)『現代思想』(Contemporary Thought) 26/5 (April). Pages 215~227.

Young, Pamela Dickey

1990           Feminist Theology/Christian Theology. Fortress.


No comments:

Post a Comment