Re: The female identity in the bible.
Az, I'm wondering if part of your issue with Ruth and Esther is that the ideals they are celebrated for are tied up with outdated social standards? To me, what you've described above is not about feminine and masculine... it's social standards that are no longer held up as ideal in modern Australian culture. Even in Aussie forms of Christianity, when we talk about being a good wife it's not about obedience and subservience anymore... so those things are a big turn off for a lot of modern women (even Christian ones).
If you try to keep cultural context in mind when you consider these women, rather than focusing on men vs women... you might find that your frame of reference changes slightly. Yes, men vs women was something that was integral to the social standard of the time, but that shouldn't lessen the importance of these women. Sure, their strengths may not be strengths by modern standards, but they were still strengths, and these women were still celebrated in their own right for those strengths. Just because the strengths were being obedient to their menfolk doesn't mean that they were not celebrated in their own right.
It still means that they are perhaps not good role models for the modern woman. Except maybe for Ruth's ability to adapt and embrace a new situation, her loyalty to her friends, and her ability to provide for her new family even when there are no menfolk around. But that's where it comes down to the dangers of holding up ancient people as role models (and I think where some branches of Christianity fall down)... ancient people must be judged by THEIR social standards, not ours. Cultural context is important here. Things change. Social standards change. That doesn't mean that ancient peoples are to be ignored, it just means that we have to judge them within their own social context, not ours.
Originally posted by Azvanna
View Post
If you try to keep cultural context in mind when you consider these women, rather than focusing on men vs women... you might find that your frame of reference changes slightly. Yes, men vs women was something that was integral to the social standard of the time, but that shouldn't lessen the importance of these women. Sure, their strengths may not be strengths by modern standards, but they were still strengths, and these women were still celebrated in their own right for those strengths. Just because the strengths were being obedient to their menfolk doesn't mean that they were not celebrated in their own right.
It still means that they are perhaps not good role models for the modern woman. Except maybe for Ruth's ability to adapt and embrace a new situation, her loyalty to her friends, and her ability to provide for her new family even when there are no menfolk around. But that's where it comes down to the dangers of holding up ancient people as role models (and I think where some branches of Christianity fall down)... ancient people must be judged by THEIR social standards, not ours. Cultural context is important here. Things change. Social standards change. That doesn't mean that ancient peoples are to be ignored, it just means that we have to judge them within their own social context, not ours.
Comment