#'it's cultural appropriation' not when they are explicitly invited to participate

[chaos-in-one]

Hey to people who try to push non Natives out of public events that the tribe itself purposefully is letting be open to outsiders please shut the fuck up

You are not the authority on this. The tribe itself, ESPECIALLY tribal elders, are. And if they want to let people in on parts of their culture that is their decision to make and you do not get to override that.

[writingwithcolor]

B’nei mitzvah in spaceship without Jewish community | Jewish character celebrating Christmas

Hi! Thank you so much for running this blog. I appreciate how much time and effort all the mods have put into it. I finished reading through the whole Jewish tag a few days ago, and I’ve learned so much! I’m writing a Voltron fic (I *know* lol) and decided to make one of the protagonists a white nonbinary Ashkenazi Reform Jewish girl. Her astronaut brother mysteriously disappears in space and is presumed dead, so she runs away from home a couple of months before her b'nei mitzvah to find him. Now, she’s in a group of rebels in space fighting against an Empire. I have two concerns:

1. Everyone on the ship misses home, so part of the way they cope is through getting in touch with their cultures. They’re gonna celebrate (a mostly non-Americanized) Christmas because it matters a lot to some of the characters for non-religious reasons. To what extent can my Jewish character participate in the celebration without it being weird? I want her to enjoy herself more because she’s with her friends than because Jesus etc. They’ll also celebrate Chanukah, if that helps. I know Chanukah isn’t a major holiday, so I also want to have her celebrate a more significant one like Rosh Hashanah and/or Purim with them. Is it okay for gentiles to participate in those holiday celebrations, or should she do that alone?

2. Throughout most of the story, she’ll struggle with choosing whether to prioritize fighting the Empire or finding her brother and bringing him home. When she eventually does find her brother (who also turns out to be a rebel), he lets her decide whether they stay or go home. I thought it would be nice if she decided to stay and keep fighting for the greater good after she finally has her b'nei mitzvah. Her friends and other experiences are also a big part of why she decides to stay, but the b'nei mitzvah would be what gives her the final push she needs to decide. I don’t know if it would be okay for me to write the ceremony itself or if she can even have one if only two of the eight people on the ship are Jewish. I read that not everyone has a b'nei mitzvah and that it’s not required, but I feel like it’d be a big deal to her character. Should I keep the b'nei mitzvah idea, or am I heading towards appropriative territory here?

I want to make her Jewishness a big part of her character’s growth, and I really want to make sure I do it respectfully and accurately. I plan on finding a sensitivity reader when I’ve made more progress with actually writing everything out. Thank you for any insight you might offer!

It feels off to me to join a community symbolically when you’re far away FROM the community. Why not just have had her already have done the ceremony before she has all these adventures? That way it could just be a straightforward story about a Jewish teen having exciting heroic adventures in space, rather than a story about what happens when you have to miss aspects of Jewish life because you’re in space. It would also make the “….well, I guess I’m around for Christmas” bit less weighted because then that would be the only one of those instead of having two of those.

–Shira 

I’ll cover some other territory here. For those who don’t know, b'nei mitzvah is something you just automatically become at the correct age, the ceremony is simply to celebrate that with the community. Not all people have the ceremony, but if you are Jewish, and of age (for religious purposes), your status changes with or without it. Personally, I’m comfortable with showing a Jewish character finding a way to have a Jewish celebration when the circumstances are less than ideal, for me the other aspects of the story are more troubling. 

On the subject of having a Jewish character celebrate Christmas with their friends… look I don’t like this trope. There are many Jewish people, who are completely secular, who don’t celebrate Christmas, because it is explicitly a Christian holiday, and secular Jewish people are still Jewish. Some Jewish people (secular or otherwise) do choose to celebrate other holidays, and I am very comfortable with those folks telling their own stories. What I’m not happy with is the push from outside of the community for every Jewish character to slide into assimilation. 

Some Jewish people will go to Christmas parties and not eat the food, because they keep kosher, or won’t stay for a tree-lighting, because that feels like it goes too far, or will give presents but not receive them. There are a huge number of ways we might handle Christmas, and I appreciate that you plan to show holidays other than just Chanukah (and yes, it’s fine for non-Jewish characters to join her in her holidays, if she invites them), but I always question why a non-Jewish writer is so keen to show Jewish characters celebrating Christmas. The most generous version of me wants to assume that you get so much out of Christmas that you want to share it, but the part of me that knows about the pressures to assimilate, and the history of increased antisemitic violence around Christmas thinks… just leave this kid alone. She missed her celebration, she’s far from her community, and now she has to go put on a Happy Assimilated Smile for the culturally Christian folks around her. From a nonbinary Jewish perspective, it’s a little unusual for your nonbinary character to use she/her pronouns, and use b'nei mitzvah as a gender neutral alternative to the gendered bat mitzvah. In secular life, at least in the US, it’s not uncommon for people to use multiple pronouns, but I haven’t met, or even heard of, a single person using gendered pronouns secularly, and using new neutral alternatives religiously. It absolutely could happen but, because it is so unusual, to me it reads as either invalidating the character’s gender, or tokenizing her in the religious sphere. 

–Dierdra 

Shira, I think that’s a really good idea to make the character post-b'nei mitzvah. That way you just have a Jewish character having adventures rather than her culture being The Conflict. (And also, a pre-b'nei mitzvah seems a bit young for this storyline? Can she really consent to fighting alongside the rebels? Do they habitually take unaccompanied children on their ship? To me a teenager would make more sense, but hey it’s not my story!)

Dierdra, your answer regarding the Christmas aspect was awesome and really thorough. Thanks for your thoughts on the pronouns as well, it also jarred with me but I was waiting to hear your opinion as you have lived experience. My worry is if you use gender neutral terms for one but not the other, you risk falling into to the stereotype that only marginalised religious folks have to change our language etc to be inclusive to LGBTQ+ people, but everyone else is fine. 

I wanted to come back to the point about Rosh Hashana. First of all, thank you for acknowledging that we have holidays that are more important than Chanukah! Sooo many OP’s don’t know that. In terms of how she would celebrate it, I agree it’s fine to invite non-Jewish people along. However, given how community-based Jewish life is, making her keep Yom Tov on her own feels a bit like a torture story, especially when others have people to celebrate Christmas with. I wonder if you’ve thought about giving her a Jewish friend on the ship? Especially if you want her Jewishness to be part of her growth as you mentioned, an older Jewish friend and mentor could be a huge help :)

–Shoshi

As you can see, we have a wide range of possibilities for “what happens when you ask a Jewish person about celebrating Christmas.” I didn’t mind hanging around it as an outsider myself until a certain subset of Christians started being mean-spirited about it in the news plus some personal trauma that time of year, as long as everyone involved was clear that I was just participating from the outside and this didn’t somehow change me. (If I may make an analogy: compare it to going to a baby shower when you want to support your friend or family member but also really don’t want kids of your own. You’re going to have a whole different experience if your decision is respected vs. if all the other guests treat you like you being there means you’ll change your mind about not wanting kids.)

That being said, it’s still all over the map. Some people IRL are okay even going to mass with their partner’s Catholic family (without participating in communion obvs.) Some would never, ever do that and are sitting here with shocked faces that I even typed that. But what becomes important is the way it’s written. Sitting around listening to the Christmas story is probably a bad fit for your fanfic, but helping other people bake Christmas cookies or put ornaments on a tree could work. The ornament thing could remind her of decorating a sukkah, and she could point that out to the others. 

I guess I’m saying is 

keep her participation secular, and 

keep her participation from leaning into the idea that we’re unhappy with our customs and would prefer to do it their way. 

I have literally never in my life felt jealous of the kids who “got to do Santa” (for example) and while I’m sure some kids were and they’re valid too, I think it’s important to show that it’s not a universal phenomenon.

–Shira

[antinonymous]

The Punk Rock in Marxist-Leninism

As far back as I can remember, I’ve always hated punk rock; the reasons why having changed significantly. I heavily identified as Right-wing throughout my childhood through early adolescence, so punk rock was a piece of culture that I quickly realized was not for me, with its far-left anarchist aesthetic. If you’d shown and explained to me something like Holiday in Cambodia I wouldn’t have cared in the slightest. Anti-fascists often forget about how the far-right rarely considers the vast and vapid categorizations of different leftists and other anti-fascist types. Anarchists are just as anti-American as Stalinists; anarchists just don’t have a plan (besides the occasional riot) so they’re more docile and easier to ignore. They’re just extra annoying and snobby. The sonic elements of punk mixed in with the political atmosphere sealed it for me. I thought this entire genre of music sounded like some twerp in class who says shit about America just to ‘piss off the system’. Childish, really.

In high school, the first punk band I didn’t immediately hate was neo-Nazi band Skrewdriver. I was introduced to them on a bus for school, with only one black kid on the whole bus, having the song White Power being shown explicitly to them. I remember referencing it to him later in conversation and he said he hated that experience. To me though? Finally, I thought, some punk rock where I can very easily say ‘well I like the music, but I don’t like their politics’ and it isn’t SJW crap. If I were to say stuff like that about other punk rock bands that’d be blasphemy, so I avoided the leftists and found more Nazi punk, where the bad politics were more obvious.

As someone who’s always been into music, my childhood had a specific opinion that I now understand to be just a simple analysis- namely, that politically left-wing music doesn’t do anything to change the system whatsoever. On an open-mic day in my high school the buses had already arrived and then my band got to play Killing in The Name. The school, the ‘system’, allotted us more time because they wanted to hear a cool song. Nobody was inspired by that song that day to think critically about the condition of militarized police in America or how the Klan’s ideology controls the majority of America’s police. I know I didn’t. Frankly, I thought putting politics in music was a waste of time Right or Left. And I found more Rightist music later on, namely in black metal.

Black metal is a mirror image of punk, if that mirror were on two ends of a horseshoe. Both started out as what we today label ‘edgy’, yet generally non-political, and then got somewhat overtaken by the far right and far left. Black metal was firmly cemented in Nazi ideology by the mid-90s with Burzum and the history of the Norwegian second wave, as well as later bands like Germany’s Absurd to solidify National Socialist Black Metal as its own genre. Then there’re wackos like Peste Noire, who, with the help of figures like Anthony Fantano, are somewhat normalized and mainstream while also having deep French nationalist roots. But what makes black metal also similar to punk is the later insurgency movements from either political side into the other genre. Nazi punk distinguishes itself not by its members being skinheads, for skinheads began as a far-left movement, but rather with aesthetics like white and red shoelaces (wrapped straight) and, of course, swastikas. In the mid/late 2010s an anti-fascist black metal scene emerged in response to the atrocities of the Obama administration and Trump’s election victory. This was spearheaded by bands like Gaylord and Neckbeard Death Camp as well as others from Bandcamp and Soundcloud. It didn’t try to distinguish itself at all, in a crypto-anti-fascism directly proselytizing. Nazi punk and anti-fascist black metal are similar in that they, like all music as we’ll be seeing, also don’t achieve anything, but are specifically trying to change the strata of their own genre’s political associations. As my own father put it, there’s only two kinds of Oi – racist and non-racist.

Left-wing black metal was obvious folly that I participated in anyway. But even when I eventually started putting personal politics into my music from 2016 through 2019, I still avoided major bands like Rage and punk rock (besides Bad Religion, which I only liked because I saw a live cover). It was actually Peste Noire who showed me the wonder of sampling in music; yet another far-right appropriation of musical technique, sadly. It was only in late 2019 and 2020 that I listened to bands like Rage and Dead Kennedys, and seeing the amount of effort they put in their messaging left me cynically giggling. Paraphrasing other commentators, music has no effect on political change no matter how radical. Far-left Marxist, Bolshevik, anarchist and Social-Democratic musical compositions have existed since the nineteenth century and were plentiful in the entirety of the 20th century, albeit with significant change after the World Wars. But music is too individualistic to be politically effective as every individual person’s preferences are different. This is how Rage and anarchist punk rock sold so well in America and how I continued to enjoy Peste Noire long after I left the Right.

My music was also inspired by industrial metal band Rammstein, and I’ve since learned that, generally speaking, politically provocative art is an integral part of industrial music generally, which easily puts off someone not paying careful attention to the music. To paraphrase Žižek, artists like Rammstein and Laibach use fascistic language and imagery in a controlled way that lifts various signs from their associations of authoritarianism, leaving them inoffensive enough to gain mainstream credibility. Case in point, Slovenia’s Laibach has caused numerous controversies over their 41-year-career with their overtly militaristic theme, prolific German lyrics, and for having been branded as dissidents by the Yugoslav government, yet they are the only foreign band that has ever performed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They were invited to play in 2015 to celebrate the 70-year-anniversary of the fall of imperial Japanese rule on National Liberation Day. The government would clearly know better than to invite a legitimate fascist band; in their minds that would most certainly create an immediate attempt to try to cause some type of western imperialist unrest. One would wonder why they’d invite anyone at all. But nothing malevolent came about from it; the show went fine, and clips of it are on YouTube. I won’t try to make any comment on any individual in the DPRK or anywhere else, but it’s fascinating to think of what happens when Laibach is played through North Korean speakers, interpreted by those who have few else in common with the band other than they both have experience living under a régime inspired by Marx.

It must be a different experience from, say, the experience of Anarchy in the UK by Sex Pistols as sung on North Korean karaoke by VICE journalist Sam Smith. This leads me to my current gripes with punk rock, specifically in the year 2021.

Sex Pistols are the origin of punk rock’s association with anarchism due to the song mentioned above, but they are also the origin of punk rock’s association with Nazism due to Sid Vicious’ use of a swastika t-shirt. This is no paradox. Both are a result of Liberal nihilism, of having no true political leaning other than blind offensiveness and ideological motivation without one ever needing sincerity in belief. Either that or punk rock bands are explicitly Liberal/conservative, which is a discourse I remember from my childhood. Post-90s punk was too commercial, liberal, gay, et cetera, with bands such as Green Day having been seen as a perversion of the solidarity of the mostly cisgender heteronormative anarchist community of people who actually listen to punk rock. John Lydon is an open Trump-supporter. After the far-right January 6th attack on the Capitol, Dead Kennedys retweeted many Liberal commentators and politicians, including Republicans Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I see not a problem with individual people and artists but a problem with punk rock as artistic expression; it has terminal hollow conformity. Overall, its association with petit bourgeois ideology leaves punk rock with little to give it credibility. Punk rock has always had an insincere, two-faced nature. ‘Punk’s not dead’ is the anti-fascist equivalent of ‘return to tradition’…or is it anti-fascist? Depends on who’s saying it, where’s being said, and who hears it.

Where to turn? Marxist-Leninists (and sometimes even anarchists) will argue that social bureaucracies such as Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, Vietnam and the DPRK provide an alternative to American global homogeny. Considering the American military spent over $700,000,000,000 on its military last year, and that many bases are specifically placed around those listed countries, their arguments aren’t entirely unconvincing. They also argue that because Marxist-Leninist politicians provided industrialization and progress for their nations without what Marxist-Leninists would personally term “imperialist war”, they should be praised, as well as the fact that many of the problems commonly associated with those countries are explicitly from American intervention to stop ‘the spread of Marxism’ and to keep them subordinated to western authority. However, as Bordiga writes in Characteristic Theses of the Party, the integral realization of socialism within the limits of one country is inconceivable and the socialist transformation cannot be carried out without insuccess and momentary set-backs. The defence of the proletarian regime against the ever-present dangers of degeneration is possible only if the proletarian State is always solidary with the international struggle of the working class of each country against its own bourgeoisie, its State and its army; this struggle permits of no respite even in wartime. This co-ordination can only be secured if the world communist Party controls the politics and programme of the States where the working class has vanquished.

Am I arguing for left unity, left solidarity, the whole “anarchists and Marxist-Leninists are going for the same communist goal” argument? No, I’m not talking about that. This has been said before but, historically speaking, there’s usually only one correct way to pilot a vehicle and thousands of wrong ways. But I’m talking about music. And I bring up Marxist-Leninism for what could be seen as a superficial reason; that the potency of Musikbolschewismus is greater than the potency of traditional anarchist punk rock. If we’re just talking about music to ‘piss people off’, which is what punk rock culturally amounts to, punk rock could be Marxist-Leninist in that that ideology has more of the nihilistic punk rock mentality than any band you could name. Because Marxist-Leninism can indeed be quite nihilistic, with Russian Bolshevik minority rule in foreign countries paralleling the worst aspects of American imperialism and its related apologia. As for industrialization, the USSR demobilized its military to a lesser extent than other European countries, organized more strictly than NATO. Their industrialization in question was related to impersonal and heavily regulated bureaucratic trade, the aforementioned occupation of eastern Europe and elsewhere, and warcraft: firearms, lightweight tanks, and thousands of nuclear weapons. In 2021, the history of Marxist-Leninist music is both far more potent and plentiful than anarchist punk rock; if a bit old-school, boringly classical, and used in the justification of unjust countries.

What I’m trying to say is this: what is the difference between an English band that wears swastika and MAGA t-shirts singing about how anarchy is good and another band that wears sickle and hammer shirts singing about how the USSR and the PRC are good? Both are nonsense but the latter is sincere with what they say… or are they? Considering punk rock’s edgy, yet ultimately cowardly and insincere anti-authority outlook, I can’t help but wonder what would be if Marxist-Leninism were to ever embrace the potentiality of its status and flaws and make annoying, loud guitar music. It wouldn’t be hard since, comparatively, the bad politics are more obvious. And once it gets started, it’d create a new cycle of the entirety of political thought in music; easily being able to be superior to Right-Libertarian punk rock and all the washed-up bands of the 70s-00s.

What’s the actual transgressive music we have today? Rap music has been mostly dominated by black Americans since the 80s, with a lot of rappers now being women. It is held to a different esteem than even the antisemitic ‘satanic panic’ of the 80s against heavy metal, since legal cases referring to rap lyrics are not unheard of and can even lead to conviction in modern times. It is much closer to the struggles of the global afro-diasporic community than with European writers from 80+ years ago. Punk rock never had, never could, and never will, have a scene of that calibre.

In conclusion, I hope I have provided a cynical pseudo-rehabilitation of punk rock through the example of Marxist-Leninism in a specific manner related to the overall creation of and interpretation of music, which is an important piece of international culture. I know Marxist-Leninist States to be corrupt and are not socialist, but to the eyes of an American, and to the ears of the average punk rock normie, Marxist-Leninism is just as anti-US government as the anarchists, only scarier, because they actually have a plan! So why can’t it be punk? The PRC’s State-sanctioned abductions are certainly not what Bordiga had in mind in regards to a proletarian government being against its own bourgeoisie. Internationality is the way forward. But it almost sounds like it’s against the system if one has that kind of understanding of ‘the system’. Who’s to say there isn’t an obscure 80s punk demo labelled Kidnapping Billionaires somewhere? Punk rock is nothing more than vapid noise to piss of conservatives. That’s it. It has no heart, spirit nor philosophy. The PRC even saying they would like socialism is too far for American conservative wormpeople, and legitimate reasons to criticize the PRC and other social bureaucracies get overshadowed by imperialist greed and racism. Music is not nearly the kind of tool of radicalism Zack de la Rocha thought it was, but with the internationality of Laibach we see it can do more than one can normally expect. It all depends on whether people can distinguish/separate the instrumentation from the proselytization.

[stvlti]

Musings on viewer identification and spectatorship in Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018)

Bandersnatch is a beast of a film and I am surprised I haven’t seen more academic essays and film analyses of it. So here’s me taking a break from your regularly scheduled fannish content to take a stab at it:

First and foremost I'm here for investigating the relationship between the audience and the screen, how the audience participates emotionally in their experience of a cinematic narrative, how the audience identifies themselves in relation to a character on-screen... perhaps, even, how the audience then continues to engage with the media they consume outside of the immediate viewing experience in a larger cultural context

And sure, these are questions that come inherently with the territory of film. Any good movie should lend itself to such thought exercises about the form, and any good screenwriter should be contemplating such questions before they lay their fingers to the keyboard (one of the first rules I learnt in Howard and Mabley's The Tools of Screenwriting: films naturally invite audience participation, and when used appropriately, it's a formidable tool in cinematic storytelling).

But Bandersnatch not only lends itself to discussions of questions of audience participation - it deliberately asks such questions through its unique form, it plays around with audience participation in such a way that even the untrained eye is made to look twice at this experience...

(1) Bandersnatch is made for active and literal audience participation

Bandersnatch doesn't ask you to invest yourself emotionally in the plot, it doesn't ask you to identify with the protagonist, so much as it drops you feet-first into the thick of it - inviting you to cross the fourth wall and become Stefan at every single choice point

(this approach takes inspiration from the video game RPG format, of course, but every other aspect in this narrative adheres to cinematic conventions, it's almost like Charlie Brooker evolved a hybrid form in writing Bandersnatch. And besides...)

(2) Bandersnatch is simultaneously metafiction that questions the idea of cinematic identification

There's a weird tension in the RPG format, you are at once experiencing the narrative in the limited tunnel-vision POV of the protagonist, and making choices for them with a sort of bird's-eye view awareness of other possible outcomes if you so choose to explore other paths. But this tension has never been so clearly illustrated as here in Bandersnatch: upon every revisit of the film you are making your choices with prior knowledge of the narrative's general direction, with the film deliberately pushing the viewer to explore other options and pathways. Because of the film's form, the audience's experience becomes one of cognitive dissonance - we are at once invited to become Stefan, and yet reminded at every turn that we will always maintain a distance to the characters on-screen, for the power and the somewhat omniscient knowledge we hold over them is a clear reminder that we exist on a different plane of reality, peering into their world through a fourth wall that was never really broken, merely lampshaded.

(3) The medium-typical visuals in Bandersnatch serve to highlight its metafictiveness (and further drives cognitive dissonance in the viewer's experience)

Unlike the video game format, the cinematic form can never quite adopt the fully-immersive POV visuals that, say, a first-person shooter game could. Conventions of the medium, e.g. mise-en-scene, wide / medium / over the shoulder shots whenever 2 on-screen characters are in conversation - even POV shots, which are quickly followed by objective shots in observance of the Kuleshov effect, none of these types of visuals come close to delivering the immersive experience that first-person video games can provide, which quite literally frames the narrative, from start to end, through the eyes of the protagonist.

The Kuleshov effect used in Bandersnatch. A POV shot is enclosed by two shots of the character whose gaze the camera temporarily adopts. Notice how by panning out to show Stefan's back, the camera distances us from Stefan's perspective once more, so that we are effectively watching over Stefan’s shoulder and not through his eyes as his story unfolds.

Every time the camera shows us a medium shot or a close-up of Stefan, Bandersnatch inevitably reminds us that we are always going to maintain a distance from Stefan as a character. We do not become Stefan, we make decisions for Stefan remotely, and this puts us directly at odds with the impulse to participate in a film via identifying with the characters on-screen.

And the idea that we are supposed to occupy a role separate from Stefan as we participate in this film - it is not just something me and a dozen other essayists have been speculating about. This is an idea that, I believe, is fully intended by Brooker and his team. If you pay attention to the film's script and visuals, Bandersnatch tells us this explicitly, particularly in the pathways where the film gets meta about its nature as a Netflix title:

(a) the script: after Stefan asks for the viewer to “give me a sign”, if you chose the Netflix logo, the dialogue confirms for us (Stefan says it and so does Dr. Haynes) that we are an external force from the future, making decisions for Stefan remotely. Stefan is then revealed, even on the level of the in-text universe, to be a fictional character played by an actor called Mike - nothing more than the sum of well-acted lines of dialogue and movement, which rather throws a wrench in a viewer's attempt to identify with Stefan as a person if you ask me.

(b) more importantly, the visuals: if you unlock the 5/5 stars ending, we see that Pearl's in-universe copy of Netflix Bandersnatch contains the same opening shot of Stefan waking up on 9th July 1984 as we witness at the start of the film. This literally adds one more layer of fourth wall between us and Stefan's character as we realise the screen through which we have been viewing his story is actually further enclosed in Pearl's computer screen, further driving home the insurmountable distance between us and Stefan's character.

(4) Bandersnatch delivers on the central conceit of spectatorship in Black Mirror* - and elevates it

There's a distance between us and Stefan, because we were never Stefan, nor were we ever even in control of Stefan - merely spectators of his tragedy.

In true Black Mirror fashion, Bandersnatch subjects us to a complicity in other people's suffering by emphasising that we are in fact viewing their stories through a screen (within the screen). Think of S1E01 "The National Anthem" - how that episode embeds footage of the Prime Minister's struggle and eventual humiliation within TV screens on-screen as he concedes to the terrorist's demands, and in doing so, places our gaze from the perspective of the UK public passively spectating the events of his tragedy.

Or, think of how S2E03 "White Bear" ultimately places our gaze in that of the camera phone-wielding park-goers, who film and derive voyeuristic pleasure from Victoria's suffering. 

At the reveal, the camera transfers our POV from Victoria's to that of the audience in the theatre. She is physically enclosed within the three walls of a traditional stage, and we peer in through the fourth wall (in addition to the fourth wall of the screen we were already viewing this episode through).

Victoria's live reaction to her criminal past is then broadcast on a screen for the audience's viewing pleasure - a screen within our screens that also adds another layer of fourth wall.

This idea of spectacle*, of course, is thematic of the show - the overarching commentary on our tendencies to consume, through the black mirror-screens of our viewing devices, incidents of no small consequence captured on news and social media as if they were merely reality TV entertainment.

What Bandersnatch does though, is that it doesn't just force us to watch as characters inevitably spiral towards tragedy and then call us out for deriving entertainment from the process. Bandersnatch takes it one step further. Its interactive feature tricks us into believing that we can shape the course of the story towards better endings, so that we are invited to experience this Black Mirror episode not just as passive spectators, but as active voyeurs whose participation causes the tragedy.

And that, I believe, is Charlie Brooker and co.'s intentions when they created Bandersnatch: to place us in a position where our relationship to Stefan's character is to be a voyeur of his tragedy. We are not Stefan, we do not become Stefan, nor do we get to shape his story in radically significant ways* - because just like Stefan, we are also bound by the limitations of the script we have been given. All we can do is spectate as Stefan's tragedy plays out, further exacerbated by our participation. It's symptomatic of Black Mirror's central conceit: we are all victims of a culture of spectacle that rules our everyday experiences of media consumption and our relationships with other humans. Likewise, Bandersnatch holds up that black mirror to our reality, almost as if to say, we are all Pac-man in the end, all we can do is consume, and in turn, be consumed by others as sources of entertainment.

(*) Notes:

When I say that we cannot shape the story in significant ways, I am only referring to the events of the story as they objectively happen on screen. I am aware of Roland Barthes's idea of "Death of the Author" and how the audience gets to be the author when we decode the meaning behind a scene and event and interpret a text according to our personal experiences of the story... But in the case of the choice points and outcomes we are presented with in Bandersnatch, Charlie Brooker holds the pen as the author of the film's pathways.

When I talk about the theme of “spectacle”, I am referring to the idea outlined by Guy Debord in his seminal work, The Society of the Spectacle. “The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images." It’s this idea that how we engage with each other as individuals in modern society when our relationships are increasingly contextualised by mass media, consumer culture, and commodity fetishism. Lots of big buzzwords there, so for a crash course on this theory and how it relates to Black Mirror I highly recommend checking out Youtube channel Wisecrack's oldest video essay on Black Mirror.

I am also currently working on a separate meta to address the idea of spectacle in Bandersnatch, all the ways Bandersnatch inherits the hallmarks of a typical Black Mirror episode, and why the movie belongs squarely in the anthology. I will hopefully post it soon so stay tuned!

[unpack-my-heart]

Midsommar spoilers ahead – read at yer own risk.

This post contains discussions of suicide, murder-suicide, graphic ritualistic violence, dissociation and mental illness. These are triggers that also apply to the film, so please be careful if you decide to go and see this film.

I went to see Midsommar last night. I thought it was a fantastic film, that raised a lot of interesting themes about gaslighting, dissociation, belonging, fascism and free will.

I’ll start with the cinematography. This film is gorgeous. The scenery is so beautiful it’s almost unbelievable – rolling greens and constant blue skies. Probably not the normal setting for a horror film, right? Compare this to the cinematography of Aster’s other film, Hereditary, with its bleak, oppressive constant grey-tone, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that Midsommar was a departure from the horror genre all together. This works in Midsommar’s favour, though. It’s horror in broad daylight, constant daylight. I think it’s important to remember that the horror genre is not, and should not, be limited to just gruesome torture porn, or an endless assault of blood, gore and guts. I mean, I like bloody horror as much as the next person, but that is not where the genre should begin and end. Of course, Midsommar has some incredibly gruesome aspects (meaning that in Britain, the film has received a rating of ‘18’). The suicide of the two elderly members of the Hårga is played on screen with an unflinching gaze, and it is about as shocking as shocking gets. Especially when the elderly man jumps in such a way that he doesn’t immediately die, and instead shatters his legs. The other Hårga members caving in his skull with a large wooden mallet elicited pained gasps from many of the people sat in the cinema with me. It was brutal. But the main thing I took away from the film was an unrelenting reminder that grief is a transformative experience – not always for the better – and that vulnerable people can be drawn to bad people, bad organizations, or to make bad decisions, and we must question whether this means they are irredeemable.  

This is actually where I started thinking about free will. The Hårga are a community bound by tradition. Their lives are to be a predetermined length, and within this, their lives are divided up into four ‘seasons’ of equal length. At the end of the winter of their lives, the period spanning 54 years old to 72 years old, you are expected to walk (literally) willingly, and freely, to your death. This is exactly what the two elderly members I just mentioned do. They are carried on sedan chairs to the top of a cliff, and then throw themselves to their deaths. Whilst I must be careful of cultural imperialism, I couldn’t help but wonder how much agency the Hårga have. Is this suicide an expression of free-will or an example of coercion driven by traditional practice? We can only speculate, but I wonder what would happen if someone refused to die at the predetermined age. This really cemented to me that the Hårga are not a peaceful community living in a psychedelic Swedish plane, but are in actuality, uncomfortably close to eco-fascism.

According to eco-fascist ideology, you’re expected to sacrifice your life in order that the group more generally can protect the interests of nature more broadly. This goes some way as to explain why the elderly members of the community, who are statistically more likely to be suffering from disease, ill-health or infirmity, are coerced to take their own lives. They have fulfilled their purpose, and they are invited? forced? to remove themselves from society. This is, of course, a society that is absolutely, entirely white. The only non-white bodies in the community are those of Josh, Simon and Connie – and these people end up dead, murdered in increasingly disturbing ways. Josh is killed whilst trying to take pictures of the Rubi Radr (the sacred text of the Hårga) – something he was explicitly forbidden to do – and his body is dragged away by a member of the Hårga who is wearing Mark’s skinned face as a mask. Connie and Simon both disappear at different points in the story, and both turn up dead. Simon is executed in a particularly graphic way – he is suspended in the chicken coop, as a blood eagle. The blood eagle is a form of ritualistic murder detailed in the Germanic and Nordic sagas, wherein the ribs are broken and the lungs are pulled out of the body, in such a way so that they look like ‘wings’. Simon’s lungs seem to inflate and deflate, as if they were breathing, but we cannot be sure whether he is still alive, or whether this is caused by Christian’s drug-addled brain.

This is where the film becomes uncomfortable for me. Connie and Simon are … very minor characters in this film. They don’t really serve any purpose other than to be tormented, murdered, sacrificed. They do not really interact with the main protagonists (Christian, Dani, Josh, Mark), other than a few pleasantries at the beginning, a shared horror at the suicide of the elders, and a very brief interaction between Connie and Dani when Connie discovers that Simon has ‘left the commune without her’. I am uncomfortable with calling Midsommar an explicitly feminist film as I believe the treatment of Connie, a sidelined, innocent, brown woman, who is brutally killed for no apparent reason other than her status as Other violates any claim the film might otherwise have as being explicitly feminist. But maybe this isn’t the point. I don’t think Midsommar has to be ‘explicitly feminist’ in order to make very valid points about how a very specific kind of female pain, grief and trauma is often ignored and overlooked. Connie’s body violates the very specific white ableness championed by the Hårga, and her experience as Other legitimizes her death. Dani’s body, a white body that does not violate any of their traditions, is permitted to live. She is permitted to access the underbelly of the commune, but this comes at a price, and I believe that price is a combination of her sanity, her sense of self, and any remaining link she had to her past.

That’s what I think Florence Pugh was so unbelievably good at depicting. I was absolutely blown away by her ability to howl like that. That sort of primal, unabashed screaming. I think the two times she -really- cries set up a really interesting dichotomy between female pain and male reactions to female pain. The first time that Dani really howls is when her parents and sister have died. It is dark, she starts this sort of crying whilst alone over the phone, and then Christian is with her but he feels entirely distant from her. The room is dark, he is rubbing her back and she is draped over him, but he feels entirely emotionally removed from the situation - he is not participating in her grief, he doesn’t look that affected by it. His presence makes the scene feel just that little bit more jarring. Actually, does he even say anything to her? As far as I remember, no he does not. She tells him they’ve died, we see a shot of him walking through the snow to her apartment, and then they’re in the apartment. He says nothing. The only noise is Dani’s screams. He is entirely silent. Compare this to the second time she howls, when she’s surrounded by the female members of the Hårga. This scene is entirely different. It’s light, and she’s surrounded by women who are touching her, caressing her, but most importantly, screaming with her. They howl and cry and scream with her. They are her perfect mirrors. They are ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING in her grief, they share in her trauma. This was probably the most harrowing shot of the entire film for me. Not the gore, not the mutilated bodies – but a woman, screaming and howling like a wounded animal, and having a horde of sympathetic women scream back at her. It’s hard to not feel drawn into this community. It’s hard to not forget the evil things they have done, or are willing to do. That is precisely what is so dangerous about the Hårga, or more generally, this very specific brand of eco-fascism.  

Some quick fire symbolism stuff that I picked up on:

the symbolism of Christian wearing dark clothing and standing away from the rest of the group when they were celebrating Dani becoming the May Queen. The way he lurches around, looking entirely out of place - she is sat at the head of the table - dressed as they are, crowned with flowers, nature moves with her - she has basically entirely assimilated - he is still outcast.

I thought it was really interesting that the group of women during the dub-con Christian/Maya sex scene mirrored how Maya was feeling. I think the focus on women mirroring each other, appropriating and absorbing how each other is feeling is a fascinating detail.  Christian, on the other hand, looks out of place in that room, a male body who only has one purpose and then is entirely redundant. This is reinforced by the bit where the girl he is sleeping with holds her hand out and he tries to grab it but instead one of the women grabs it. He basically serves no purpose beyond impregnating her - and even then he isn’t even that good at it, because one of the other women has to push on his butt to push him along in the process. Women as being the most active and present in sex, men just … seed? Is this a subversion of how sex is usually seen?

The disabled boy seems to serve no purpose in society other than being the oracle - he does not participate in the banquet or any of the celebrations. He is almost never on screen, apart from a few very close up shots of his face, and one occasion where the camera shifts to him from the sex scene  -  a very jarring decision, in my opinion. Panning to him during the sex scene was super interesting and really not expected. It was an interesting visual choice, and it made me think about whether the point was to emphasise how he will presumably never participate in sexual acts etc. because of the eugenics practiced by the Hårga. This was a pretty damning condemnation of the Hårga as an eco-fascist group who actively engages in eugenics/”selective breeding”. You can definitely see links here between the growth of fascism and eugenics in the early 20th century and the practices of the Hårga.

I really liked how the entire time they were at the commune almost felt like … a fever dream in a distant fairytale land. Walking through the large sun at the beginning, having to trek through the fields to get there, everything looking very idyllic and exactly how a young child would imagine a Swedish landscape to look. The perfect environment to discuss dissociation, in my opinion.

These are some scattered thoughts I had after viewing the film!!

Overall, I really enjoyed it, despite some of the troubling social themes, and it’s another absolute win for Aster in my book.

[impressivepress]

HENRI MATISSE’S DOMESTIC INTERIORS

John Elderfield reexamines Matisse’s Piano Lesson (1916) and Music Lesson (1917), considering the works’ depictions of domestic space during the tumult of World War I.

Those interested in modern art who have been in voluntary isolation with a partner and children since the spring may have wondered: do we have images of what family life was like for the great early modernists? The answer is: at first, yes. As the nineteenth century advanced, it became increasingly common for married bourgeois couples in France to sleep together in double beds, and for much of their private time after marriage to be consumed with children. Greater intimacy between husband and wife, accompanied by closer family relationships generally, meant that paintings abounded of bourgeois parents with their children, including paintings of artists’ families.1

And so it remained through Impressionism. But the sterner modernism that followed was less forgiving of such potentially sentimental subjects, which remained the province of more traditional painters—artists who remained happy to record parents with the children they had begun to call by silly but touching pet names (as they often also did each other), and who posed proudly as families in their overstuffed living rooms. But Henri Matisse or Pablo Picasso?

Actually, three of Matisse’s most important paintings are of his family: The Painter’s Family, The Piano Lesson, and The Music Lesson.2 What follows concentrates on the last two, especially the third. As will become apparent, their implications bear significantly on our present domestic situations, isolated from the viral chaos around us, and not only because both of them depict home schooling.

Two Lessons, Two Styles

These two works were painted in the years 1916–17, but in what order is extremely pertinent to their meanings. Before Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the Museum of Modern Art’s founding director, published his great 1951 monograph on Matisse—the first to establish a plausible chronology of the artist’s work—it was not known which canvas came first. As Barr reported, Pierre Matisse, the artist’s younger son, was “quite certain that the more abstract of the two, The Piano Lesson, is the earlier,” while the artist’s wife, Amélie, remembered that “the more abstract canvas was as usual painted after the more realistic one.”3

Had Madame Matisse been correct, the reputation of The Music Lesson would be akin to that of the first, freer versions of other pairs of the artist’s paintings: though not of the same order as the succeeding, more rigorous composition, it would be seen as an accomplished work. However, as Barr realized, it was Pierre Matisse who was correct. As a result, The Music Lesson has widely been seen as a regression on the artist’s part—a move away from the radical invention of his work of the 1910s, and one leading to the more traditional naturalism that would flourish in the 1920s.

So infuriated about this interpretation was the critic Dominique Fourcade that in 1986 he described its proponents as evidencing “satisfaction in letting the artist die in 1916 with La Leçon de piano . . . even if that meant letting him be reborn from nothingness” in the 1930s, to again work “abstractly and without transition, to the cut-outs at the end of his life.”4 I was not alone in thinking that “letting the artist die” was hyperbole on Fourcade’s part, but it proved no exaggeration: a decade or so later, in 1998, art historian Yve-Alain Bois was writing that with The Music Lesson Matisse “takes leave of himself, and of what I have called his system,” by which Bois meant the conception of painting that the artist had formed a decade earlier and employed through the creation of The Piano Lesson.5 Clearly, if Matisse “takes leave of himself, and . . . his system” in The Music Lesson, then, for Bois, he does at that moment die, at least artistically. To compare these two paintings, then, is unlike comparing any other pair of paintings by Matisse: it is to adjudicate a controversy.

Family Paintings

Let us begin with what the two paintings have in common: size, medium, and subject matter. Both are about eight feet tall by seven feet wide, with The Piano Lesson very slightly the larger of the pair. This makes them the largest paintings Matisse ever made, with the exception of his few imagined compositions: Dance and Music, of 1909–10, and Bathers by a River and The Moroccans, both completed more or less at the same time as The Piano Lesson. Like most of Matisse’s paintings, they were painted in oil on canvas.

To turn to subject matter is to open the pages of a very extensive literature, some of which I myself have written and which interested readers can easily find.6 But at least a summary is needed here, for these two paintings are exceptional both in their particular choice of subject and in their relationship to works on a similar subject. In the latter respect they belong to a long sequence of the artist’s paintings of a privileged interior space, either home or studio or both at the same time. As with some but not all earlier such paintings—the most celebrated example being The Red Studio (1911)—the objects depicted within their interiors have allusive or symbolic qualities, either conventional or original to Matisse. And, like most but not all of the paintings in this subcategory, the manner in which the interior and the objects within it are painted explicitly participates in the shaping of these qualities.

To further reduce the field of comparison, these are, as we have heard, family paintings, preceded in this respect by only The Painter’s Family of 1911.7 To be precise, The Piano Lesson shows only one member of the family—Pierre, the artist’s younger son—while The Music Lesson, just like The Painter’s Family, shows all of its members: Matisse’s eldest child, Marguerite, stands beside Pierre at the piano; his older brother, Jean, sits at the left, smoking while reading; the artist’s wife, Amélie, is outside in the garden; and though Matisse himself goes unseen, he is alluded to through a prominent depiction of his violin, which rests on the piano. It is truly a painting of a painter’s family; and Matisse himself titled it La famille. It was renamed The Music Lesson by Albert C. Barnes, never one to shy from taking such liberties, after it entered his collection (now the collection of the Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia) in 1923.8

These paintings, and especially the second, belong to a long tradition of representations of one and usually more members of a family in an explicitly domestic space, and engaged in an activity or activities appropriate to it. The most prominent antecedents are the paintings of, and made for, the comfortable bourgeois households of seventeenth-century Holland. Eugène Fromentin, in his book Les maîtres d’autrefois of 1876, proposed that Dutch art, famous for its domestic interiors, effectively began in 1609, with the beginning of the twelve-year truce in the Eighty Years’ War with Spain.9 Art historian Svetlana Alpers, to whom I owe this observation, points out that wartime paintings of guardrooms and garrisons were the forerunners of these domestic interiors; familial intimacy would have been understood to be the counterpart of martial camaraderie.

By now, alarm bells should be sounding, at least for those who know that the years 1916 and 1917, when Matisse made these two paintings, were very bad years indeed for France in World War I, with more than half a million dead in 1916 and almost as many the following year. Moreover, these works were painted in the living room of Matisse’s home, looking out onto its back garden, where his studio stood.10 The house was in Issy-les-Moulineaux, a suburb of Paris that had transformed itself into a center for the military aviation industry, producing fighter planes; and the household was impoverished by the war, whose guns could actually be heard from the garden on quiet days—guns, and also massive explosions from military mines, both utterly destructive of the French countryside. The loudest of these—on June 7, 1917, during the Battle of Messines—was the product of 600 tons of explosives that blew off the crest along the entire length of the Messines Ridge; it was heard as far away as Dublin.11 The British general who ordered this offensive famously remarked, “We may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography.”12 This was not only a war between nations but also had quickly become a war against nature.

It was around this time that The Music Lesson was painted, in midsummer 1917. That was also when—as Matisse wrote in a letter to his friend the painter Charles Camoin—“Something important has happened in my house: Jean, my eldest, has left to join the regiment at Dijon.”13 What may at first sight appear to be a scene of cultured and contented domestic harmony, then, was about to shattered. This is not only a family painting; it is also a war painting.

Much has been written of the reductive, “abstract” vocabulary of The Piano Lesson as the result of Cubist geometry, on the one hand, and wartime avoidance of luxury, on the other. These factors may indeed have been sources for Matisse as he painted this picture, but a source may or may not be called into play in the finished form of a work of art.14 As I see it, the war as a source is actually called into play more fully in The Music Lesson than in its predecessor, if less obviously. Knowing that Jean Matisse was headed for guardrooms or garrisons aids a martial association that may have been in his father’s mind, but this is present in the painting only for those who know it as well. In what follows, I shall propose that the imaging of this sociable canvas itself invites interpretation as describing a family in a moment of lockdown against mindfulness of anything troublingly external, whereas The Piano Lesson pushes out of our minds all but the moment of twilight grace that it represents.

Rooms with a View

Let us now look at what the two paintings represent, and how they do so. As we have heard, The Piano Lesson shows solely the artist’s younger son, Pierre. He stares out toward us, even while lost in concentration, practicing on a very bourgeois Pleyel piano beside a French window open to the garden. Pierre was sixteen when the picture was painted but looks much younger. Since he and his father were the musicians of the family, he may be thought to function as a surrogate for the painter. In the bottom-left corner of the painting we see Matisse’s Decorative Figure of 1908, arguably the most sexual of his sculptures. Behind Pierre we may think we see a woman seated on a high stool, a severe, supervisory, arguably maternal presence, but this is actually a painting on the wall, Matisse’s Woman on a High Stool (Germaine Raynal) of 1914, transformed to convey these qualities.15 On the rose cloth over the piano, a candle and a metronome recapitulate the opposition of vitality and logic that the sculpture and the painting introduce. Together, they also stress the measuring of time, while the carving around the reversed name of the piano on the music stand flows across time and space, like music, through the grillwork of the window.

Time has stopped at a moment of fading, late-afternoon light in a dimly illuminated interior. An unseen light to the right traverses the scene, striking the boy’s forehead and shadowing a triangle on his far cheek; brightening the salmon-orange curtain and the pale blue-gray of the partly closed right panel of the window; and illuminating a big triangular patch of lawn outside, the only visible feature of the darkened garden. It is the view of the room that matters.

The colors, including that green triangle no more distant than anything else, complement one another in ways that activate the stillness of the scene. The orange converses with the pale blue, and the rose with the green; these are interrupted by a yellow and a black, all of them reconciled by the surrounding soft gray, which they appear to tint. The colors also resist being fully incorporated into the work of objective depiction, largely because they occupy such stark, autonomous shapes. Instead, the strips and shards of color may be imagined as organizing a simulacrum of the spatial experience of such a scene. They alternatively attract and repel each other, as if magnetized, tipping backward and forward in space, even as they shift in position across the plane of the picture. To follow their direction in the means and pace of our attention is to imagine a movement akin to walking through a room and registering the effects of parallax—the apparent displacement of objects in space due to changes in the position of the observer.

With The Music Lesson, by contrast, everything appears utterly still, and no one looks out of the room; we are excluded. However, we do now see the garden. More precisely, we are shown a view not into the garden but of it, for Matisse has given it the appearance of a painted screen rolled down at the back of the living room, the gray frame around it containing a scene no more real than that of the woman on a high stool in the ocher-framed painting beside it. As such, it may be thought to conceal the reality of what is outside. Prominent beyond the pool is a much enlarged reprise of Matisse’s sculpture Reclining Nude I (Aurora) as re-represented in his Blue Nude: Memory of Biskra (both 1907), the luxuriant backdrop here substituting for the North African setting of the earlier painting, and similarly enhancing the nude’s sensuality.16 The garden erased by twilight in The Piano Lesson may seem a better response to a war that was more ruthlessly and extensively destructive of landscape than any previous. But as the critic Paul Fussell observed of the literature produced during World War I, “If the opposite of war is peace, the opposite of experiencing moments of war is proposing moments of pastoral.”17

Whereas, in making The Piano Lesson, Matisse condensed, eliminating detail, in The Music Lesson he veiled and washed over drawn detail with thinly applied paint. He had been working like this since making his late, dark-and-sculptural Fauve paintings, such as Blue Nude: Memory of Biskra; and he continued to do so in a less sculptural way, and with a lighter palette, even while making more severe, opaque pictures throughout his so-called “experimental period,” of which The Piano Lesson was a summative work. The manner in which The Music Lesson was painted is less a fall from modernist grace, as many critics have characterized it, than a recovery of that late Fauve manner, but with a more intense, indeed almost hallucinatory palette.

Leave-taking

Bois said Matisse took leave of a “system” after painting The Piano Lesson. He characterized that system as “an all-over conception of the canvas” that is “the product of a total democracy on the picture plane, of a dispersion of forces: our gaze is forbidden to focus on any particular area of the picture.”18 I agree that that painting’s successor is a leave-taking painting, but not in that sense: I think Bois’s description also applies to The Music Lesson, and that it is as summative in its own way as its predecessor. The two works encapsulate the momentum of preceding domestic and studio interiors in two different keys, the earlier work drawing together the achievements of the four preceding extraordinary years, the later looking back a decade to see what earlier innovations should be preserved. And it is the later work, with its extraordinarily disjointed composition—of which more in a moment—that shuttles around our gaze the more frenetically.

The putative sweetness and naturalism of The Music Lesson may lull us into believing that it is an undemanding work, but it is as undemanding as, say, Watteau’s paintings of disconnected figures, made two centuries earlier, from which it draws inspiration. Barr perceptively described its style as “descriptive rococo.”19 The artist and critic Amédée Ozenfant invoked another eighteenth-century artist when he observed of the Nice-period paintings that followed The Music Lesson, “This hankering for comfort. . . . When I hear him taking this line à la Fragonard, I have the feeling it is a feint.”20 I myself have the feeling that The Music Lesson is a feint, challenging our preconceptions, at the end of Matisse’s most extremist period of modernism, as to what a modern painting can be.

I therefore find myself disagreeing not only with Bois, who sees The Music Lesson as Matisse’s leave-taking from his time as a modernist painter, but also with Fourcade, who wants to see the artist’s career as “an uninterrupted story.”21 Painting his son Jean’s leave-taking, Matisse does paint a leave-taking of his own, a moving on from what he had achieved over the past few years. He was very clear about this, saying, “If I had continued down the . . . road which I knew so well, I would have ended up as a mannerist.”22 What he ends up as—predicated in The Music Lesson—is an artist determined not to be constrained by the universalizing modernism that he had inherited; hence his fascination with the prerevolutionary eighteenth century.23 This led him to develop from previously unexplored features of his post-Fauve paintings a highly self-conscious, even metapictorial, art of spectacle.

Whereas the modernism of The Piano Lesson is so tautly drawn that we never think of an actual pianist wedged behind the sheet music, the naturalism of The Music Lesson invites us to imagine the members of the family having taken their places where Matisse shows them. If we do imagine that, we must conclude that all of them are oblivious to what is around them, and to each other—except for the intimate couple at the piano, Marguerite protective of her younger brother, Pierre, since the elder one will soon be leaving. Both Jean and Amélie are alone. If we know of his approaching mobilization, we may guess why. Amélie’s isolation—outside the oasislike part of the garden, with its voluptuous sculpture—leaves little to the imagination. Still, whether paired or alone, the family sit in a cramped, busily claustrophobic space. And whether music-making or reading or whatever it is that Madame Matisse is doing—knitting, perhaps—they are not at work; their occupations are pastimes, ways of passing the time. Yet if the The Piano Lesson evokes time measured, The Music Lesson suggests time paused—whether forever or just momentarily is unclear, but Matisse has certainly hit the pause button, with his family at once busily occupied and locked down in place.

Speaking recently of Matisse’s contemporaneous Garden at Issy, art historian T. J. Clark refers to “those pictures—the key pictures, most often, in modernism—where deep inward concentration on means, fierce enclosure in a pictorial world, results in a strength that is not like any kind of pictorial strength we have seen before.”24 The Music Lesson both reflects fierce enclosure and is a picture of one; however, it is a thing of parts and patches less well guarded than The Piano Lesson.

The vivid coloration of The Music Lesson adds an apparitional, somewhat exotic quality to this family tableau, the pink answering the green, the turquoise the brown, and the gray binding the other colors while also separating out the soon-to-be soldier. Barnes compared its large geometric planes of flat color to those of what he called “Oriental art,” an association also applicable to the garden statue and linking The Music Lesson to The Painter’s Family, which was influenced by Persian miniatures.25 As in that earlier painting, the planes, piled one above the other, clash dissonantly, and our unified experience of the picture is to be found in our experience of its discord, not in its formal coherence as a decoratively patterned surface.26 Here, the superimposed flickering filaments of overlaid curvilinear drawing, which camouflage the meeting of the planes as they speak to the garden foliage, increase the sense of a composition poised on the brink of decomposition. As art historian Karen K. Butler acutely observes, “Overall, the strong tension between geometry and arabesque, or order and chaos, creates a mesmerizing subliminal stasis.”27 She adds that while The Music Lesson has been associated with nationalistic wartime critiques of avant-garde art in favor of traditional themes—here, “la bonne famille française”—its formal discord is complemented by its “thematic opposition of tropical and sexual luxuriance with bourgeois order.”28

This is not a regressive work, and there is nothing in it of a retour à l’ordre. Certainly the feint that it has seemed to introduce would become a way of disarming an audience hostile to modernism, but this did not prevent the result from being surreptitiously challenging, often melancholic, and affecting as well as sweetly beautiful. And the sweetness and beauty are obviously as much a challenge to modernist taste as their opposites are to antimodernist ones. In the end, though, what is at once most challenging to accommodate in our familiar picture of Matisse, and most familiar in the art that surrounds us now, is the assertion of the viability of aesthetic spectacle—the false scenic magic of what Charles Baudelaire called “favorite dreams treated with consummate skill and tragic concision.”29

A Man Who Is Not at the Front

This said, I must turn in conclusion to a question that readers may have been asking: even if The Piano Lesson and The Music Lesson are war paintings in the sense that they reflect their creation during wartime—the forces of order and chaos at odds in the family-lockdown canvas especially—they offer no response to the true horrors of the battlefields. In an earlier issue of the Quarterly (Spring 2020) I wrote of how, a half century earlier, the French painter Édouard Manet had faced the question of how to be an activist in his art by vigorously drawing attention to a single indefensible episode of violence, the shocking execution of Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, who had been imposed on that country as its ruler through French neocolonialism. What, then, are we to make of Matisse’s silence on the unparalleled slaughter during the years of World War I?

The answer has two parts. The first is that Matisse volunteered for military duty, and even purchased boots in anticipation of serving, but was rejected owing to his age (he was forty-four) and weak heart. He was deeply upset—disappointed and I think ashamed—at not directly serving his country, especially since many of his friends and colleagues did serve, including his close friends Camoin and the painter Albert Marquet, as well as Guillaume Apollinaire and Georges Braque, both of whom were badly wounded and returned as war heroes. Others, however, were successful in escaping service, Robert Delaunay fleeing to Switzerland and Marcel Duchamp to the United States, and we must forget the honor claimed by many of those in the United States who refused the draft during the Vietnam War if we are to understand the dishonor assigned to those who did so in France in 1914. For Matisse, that would have been out of the question.

Second: Matisse spoke of sharing the sense of helplessness and revulsion that so many were feeling over the war, but he did help in practical ways.30 One of the first results of Germany’s invasion of France, for example, was the occupation of Matisse’s northern hometown of Bohain-en-Vermandois, which meant that the artist’s brother, Auguste, and some 400 other townsmen were deported to a German prison camp, leaving his seventy-year-old mother, Anna, alone and in failing health. Matisse sold prints in order to send 100 kilos of bread each week to these prisoners, who were at risk of dying from hunger.31 (Buying each week what works out to be 500 baguettes was no mean task during wartime.)

Yet Matisse clearly felt deeply uncomfortable about the idea of making art that professed to make a difference to what was happening on the battlefields. “Waste no sympathy on the idle conversation of a man who is not at the front,” he wrote to a gallerist, “and besides a man not at the front feels good for nothing.”32 It was impossible for Matisse to conceive of making war posters, as Raoul Dufy did; and paintings of battlefields, such as Félix Vallotton made, were obviously out of the question.33 Speaking for himself, he would write in 1951: “Despite pressure from certain conventional quarters, the war did not influence the subject of paintings, for we were no longer merely painting subjects. For those who could work there was only a restriction of means.”34

Matisse’s reaction to the privations of the war took the form of a self-imposed restriction of means, making do with less in his art as well as in his life. This response, which was ethical as well as pictorial, only increased the intensity of what he achieved. He spurned ostentation in both his personal and his public life, including refusing to draw attention to himself by staging solo exhibitions in Paris while his compatriots were in arms. And even as the Cubists, following Matisse’s own earlier lead, were enriching the color of their works in 1914, he refused ostentation in his art, too—then broke free with The Music Lesson to make his perhaps most underestimated major painting.

~ John Elderfield · Fall 2020 Issue. John Elderfield, Chief Curator Emeritus of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and formerly the inaugural Allen R. Adler, Class of 1967, Distinguished Curator and Lecturer at the Princeton University Art Museum, joined Gagosian in 2012 as a senior curator for special exhibitions.

-

1 See Anne Martin-Fugier, “Bourgeois Rituals,” in Michelle Perrot, ed., A History of Private Life, vol. 4, From the Fires of Revolution to the Great War, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 261–337, esp. “From Marriage to Family,” pp. 321–22.

2 A fourth, lesser painting, Pianist and Checker Players of 1924, is a reprise of The Painter’s Family. Luxe, calme et volupté of 1904–05 is, obliquely, a family painting, albeit not set in an interior. Illustrations of these and other works mentioned but not illustrated in this essay may be easily found in my Henri Matisse: A Retrospective (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1992). The present text is a substantially revised and expanded version of my essay “Un nouveau départ,” in Cécile Debray, Matisse: Paires et séries, exh. cat. (Paris: Centre Pompidou, 2012), pp. 119–24.

3 Alfred H. Barr, Jr., Matisse: His Art and His Public (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1951), p. 193.

4 Dominique Fourcade, “An Uninterrupted Story,” in Henri Matisse: The Early Years in Nice, 1916–1930, exh. cat. (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1986), pp. 47–48.

5 Yve-Alain Bois, Matisse and Picasso, exh. cat., Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth (Paris: Flammarion, 1998), pp. 29–30.

6 See my essays on The Piano Lesson in Matisse in the Collection of The Museum of Modern Art (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1978), pp. 114–16, and in Stephanie D’Alessandro and Elderfield, Matisse: Radical Invention, 1913–1917, exh. cat. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 290–93. The former speaks more of iconography, the latter more of the pictorial process, and both essays contain references to other literature on this painting and The Music Lesson.

7 See note 2 above on one later painting, Pianist and Checker Players.

8 The finest account of this painting is Karen K. Butler, “The Music Lesson,” in Yve-Alain Bois, ed., Matisse in the Barnes Foundation (Philadelphia: The Barnes Foundation, 2015), 2:214–29.

9 See Svetlana Alpers, The Vexations of Art: Velázquez and Others (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005), pp. 86–90. As Alpers points out, pp. 83–84, Matisse’s Still Life after Jan Davidsz. De Heem’s “La Desserte” (1915) belongs to this discussion; on which see my discussion of this painting in Matisse: Radical Invention, pp. 254–59.

10 Garden at Issy, a painting made in June–October 1917, around the same time as The Painter’s Family, includes a schematic image of the studio.

11 See D’Alessandro, “The Challenge of Painting,” and my “Charting a New Course,” both in Matisse: Radical Invention, respectively pp. 262–69 and 310–19.

12 See Peter Barton, Peter Doyle, and Johan Vandewalle, Beneath Flanders Fields: The Tunnellers’ War 1914–1918 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005), pp. 162–83. In Matisse: Radical Invention, p. 319, I relate this explosion to Matisse’s Shaft of Sunlight, also of summer 1917.

13 The family had been dreading this event, but Jean had volunteered and was therefore able to choose how he wished to serve. Probably on the basis of what he had seen in Issy, he opted to become an airplane mechanic, and soon left, to everyone’s relief, not for the front lines but to begin his mechanic’s training in Dijon. He was disgusted with the job within a fortnight, but at least he was not fighting in the mud of the trenches. See Matisse, letter to Charles Camoin, n.d. [summer 1917], in Claudine Grammont, ed., Correspondance entre Charles Camoin et Henri Matisse (Lausanne: Bibliothèque des Arts, 1997), p. 105.

14 See Christopher Ricks, Allusion to the Poets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 3–4.

15 Woman on a High Stool is a portrait not of Mme. Matisse but of Germaine Raynal, the then-nineteen-year-old wife of the critic Maurice Raynal, who was closely allied with the Cubists. Here, though, she fulfills a role in the painting, and by extension in the Matisse household, akin to that of the chilly, dignified Mme. Bellelli in Edgar Degas’s Bellelli Family of c. 1860, a figure who, in Martin-Fugier’s description, “accurately portrays the role of the bourgeois mother.” “Bourgeois Rituals,” p. 269.

16 Matisse’s The Moroccans, another painting of a North African motif, conceived in 1912, was finally completed in November 1916, between the two family paintings and at a time of increasing concern for African soldiers involved in the war and visible on the streets of Paris.

17 Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 231. Fussell continues, “Since war takes place outdoors and always within nature, its symbolic status is that of the ultimate antipastoral.” Matisse’s final two (of six) sessions of work on his Bathers by a River (conceived 1909), which took place in 1916 and 1917, transformed what had begun as a pastoral composition into what is commonly understood to be an antipastoral one. The Piano Lesson and The Music Lesson were among the paintings he made when taking a break from making the critical changes on that enormous canvas. Its six-part development is charted in Matisse: Radical Invention, pp. 88–91, 104–07, 152–57, 174–77, 304–09, 346–49.

18 Bois, Matisse and Picasso, pp. 29–30.

19 Barr, Matisse: His Art and His Public, p. 194.

20 Amédée Ozenfant, Mémoires, 1886–1962 (Paris: Segher, 1968), p. 215; quoted here from Pierre Schneider, Matisse (New York: Rizzoli, 1984), p. 506. I have discussed this statement previously in Henri Matisse: A Retrospective, pp. 37–41.

21 Fourcade, “An Uninterrupted Story.”

22 Matisse, quoted in Ragnar Hoppe, “På visit hos Matisse,” in Städer och Konstnärer, resebrev och essäer om Konst (Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag, 1931), 196, recording a visit to Matisse in 1919. Trans. in Jack Flam, ed., Matisse on Art (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995), p. 75.

23 Edward Said has relevant things to say here in “Return to the Eighteenth Century,” in his On Late Style: Music and Literature Against the Grain (New York: Pantheon, 2006), pp. 25–47.

24 T. J. Clark’s lecture “Attention to What? Matisse’s Garden at Issy, 1917,” which speaks of Garden of Issy as reflecting its wartime creation, was delivered as part of the Glasgow International, March 2020.

25 Albert C. Barnes, The Art in Painting (Merion, PA: The Barnes Foundation Press, 1925), 360. Quoted here from Butler, “The Music Lesson,” p. 222.

26 I draw here on my remarks on The Painter’s Family in Henri Matisse: A Retrospective, p. 63.

27 Butler, “The Music Lesson,” p. 219.

28 Ibid., 227 n. 7, questioning the interpretation in Kenneth E. Silver, Esprit de corps: The Art of the Parisian Avant-Garde and the First World War, 1914–1925 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 200–203.

29 I observed earlier that the garden in The Music Lesson resembles a painted screen rolled down at the back of the living room; in the passage quoted here, Charles Baudelaire is discussing his admiration for backdrop paintings on the stage. He concludes, “These things, so completely false, are for that very reason much closer to the truth.” Baudelaire, “Salon of 1859,” discussed in and here quoted from Walter Benjamin, “On Some Motifs in Baudelaire,” in his Illuminations, ed. and intro. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken, 1968), p. 193.

30 See Matisse, letter to René Jean, October 1, 1915, quoted in my entry on Still Life after Jan Davidsz. De Heem’s “La Desserte”, in Matisse: Radical Invention, p. 255.

31 See D’Alessandro’s entry on For the Civil Prisoners of Bohain-en Vermandois and her essay “The Challenge of Painting,” both in Matisse: Radical Invention, respectively p. 249, pp. 264–65.

32 Matisse, letter to Léonce Rosenberg, June 1, 1916, quoted in D’Alessandro, “The Challenge of Painting,” p. 263.

33 On the activities of French artists during the war, see Silver, Esprit de corps, and Richard Cork, A Bitter Truth: Avant-Garde Art and the Great War, exh. cat. (London: Barbican Art Gallery, and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).

34 Matisse, in E. Tériade, “Matisse Speaks,” Art News Annual 21 (1952): pp. 40–71, quoted here from Flam, ed., Matisse on Art, p. 205.

[austinbeerguide]

Brewer’s Brain: From the Mind of Shannon “The Brew Brotha” Harris

I am often asked, “What’s your favorite beer?”, which has always been an extremely broad question to answer. Broad in the sense that there’s so many styles or categories of beer to consider before providing an answer. Sometimes I can proudly name a slayed ”whale” (beer reference for overpriced rare or small batch/limited released craft beer), most of the time it’s simply answering with my favorites styles; imperial stouts and lagers. Then there’s the question of “What’s your favorite brewery to visit?”. Tough one to answer when there’s over 8,000+ craft breweries in the U.S. and I’ve been to at least 100 of them. But if you must know — it’s Guinness Brewery in Baltimore, MD. Although, there is a debate if they’re even considered a craft brewery.

There’s one question that I’ve always asked myself when visiting breweries over the years. It’s a question not too many have asked me, until recently. “Where are all of the black people?”

Before anyone who reads this gets up in arms, this is a two-way street that has a middle ground for us all to meet. Safely. The underrepresentation of people of color in the craft beer industry has been an ongoing issue. Discussions about diversity and inclusion have been made but many have also been ignored as the topic is sensitive to most. The lack of diversity in the taproom is being noticed; the bar staff, cellarmen/cellarwomen, brewers, and even ownership. It’s being observed by beer snobs, or aficionados, such as myself, and to those that are new to craft beer on the outside looking in.

I’ve been a voice against the cultural appropriation, tone deaf labels, and beer names that breweries jump on with no thought to how offensive these could be to minorities. We have breweries mistreating their employees of color with distasteful racist and sexist jokes or segregated office supplies. Yes, you’ve read that last part right. Explicitly “F” that brewery. It’s an industry that can make most people of color cringe just to be a part of.

Ready to address the elephant in the room now? Craft beer is a predominately white all boys club.

It started that way and has been that way for some time now. With the rise of women, LGBTQ+, and minority brewers and owners, we are on a path to great change in the industry. To play devils advocate, taprooms aren’t that much more diverse on the consumer side either, which leads me to ask, how are people of color or other underrepresented minorities looking to include ourselves in this industry?

I see change happening by encouraging people of color to tap into the market by looking to own, partner, and operate a brewery. Making this change will make more people of color feel included and welcome when visiting, working for, and owning a business in craft beer.

Of all craft breweries in the U.S. less than 1% are actually black-owned. That’s roughly 60 black-owned breweries out of over 8,000. A small fraction, but huge progress nonetheless, as the number slowly but surely increases year over year. You are probably asking yourself, how do we, as Black and Brown people engage ourselves? Instead of waiting on an invitation (because let’s face it, not everyone is going to roll out the red carpet for us) we need to take the initiative and visit local breweries in our own communities and drink beer. We need to apply for front of house brewery positions and become a recognized face and heard voice. We need to partner with our fellow minority friends to develop business plans and create a platform to empower ourselves in this industry.

Many breweries have been vocal; making it clear that racism and hate is not tolerated in their brewery. Making it loud and clear that the Black community is loved, appreciated and welcomed as they stand with us as allies in solidarity.

Watch for breweries that have been eerily silent or blatantly announcing and showing their lack of empathy and flat out hate towards black people, while at the same time having black and other minority customers and staff members. Pay attention to redacted opinions and companies begrudgingly joining the cause. Many have only posted a black square on social media and left it that. Leaving their supporting consumers wondering what’s next, as “business as usual” posts buried that black square.

We need to support the breweries that are standing up against the injustices towards people of color. The breweries that are donating and raising money for minority focused charities. Most are brewing charitable beers like the now worldwide Black is Beautiful beer initiative, started by Weathered Souls Brewing in San Antonio, TX, who used this time as an amazing opportunity to shed light on today’s racial issues. You can find out more about the initiative at blackisbeautiful.beer and support the communities that are local to you by visiting participating breweries in your area and purchase Black is Beautiful.

Garrett Oliver, of Brooklyn Brewery, has recently launched The Michael Jackson Foundation for Brewing & Distilling. A grant-making organization that funds scholarship awards to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color within the brewing and distilling trades.

The breweries that have been silent with their brewing platforms have blamed COVID or lack of tank space as reasons they’re not participating. Fair, but there’s over 1,000 breweries worldwide participating that are also suffering from the destruction COVID-19, have limited tank space, but rearranged brewing schedules to support the cause. Silent breweries have been slowly doing a 180 and participating after a slew of social media call outs. Knowing that it has taken being called out to get a brewery to brew a beer versus genuinely deciding to do so on their own is disappointing, yet eye opening.

Of course we know that all lives do matter but Black lives are the ones in jeopardy today. Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd are just a few of the unexpected, unnecessary, and unlawful examples of that jeopardy. When it comes to craft beer, and the industry within itself, let’s acknowledge those people of color that are advocating for diversity and inclusion. We’ve reached out in many ways to support craft breweries — now its time for you to reach out. Create that dialogue and educate yourself. If these are issues you’ve never dealt with by not being a minority, have a conversation with your staff and other supporters that are. Brewery owners and managers must note that even within your own staff, if there’s a minority team member, they may be hurting and looking at you for guidance, compassion, acknowledgment, and more than likely solidarity. Be our ally.

We need to keep the pressure on and speak out. We can’t stop with a black square on Instagram or even with this article. We need to use those hashtags and #SayTheirNames, continuing to feature the voices of Black & Brown people with more articles such as mine here. I love craft beer and the industry behind it. All I want from the craft beer industry is to love me back. Because I am Black, and want to be seen and included.

Sincerely,

Your Brotha in Beer

Follow the @thebrewbrotha on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook

From the summer 2020 issue.

[homebrewdeviants]

[World Building June 2017: Luxson Cluster] Day 10: Holidays & Traditions

[Day 10 Prompt] 🌐 [Full Prompt List]

The main calendar in the Luxson Cluster is divided into six seasons: spring, summer, monsoon, autumn, early winter, and late winter. As is the case with most of the southeastern islands in Morbit, weather in the cluster is typically mild and pleasant year-round, with hot summers and temperate winters.

Many traditions in the eastern cluster have been in decline after the terror plague, as their participants have slowly died out or simply refuse to pass them on to the next generation. There are still many holidays that remain popular, however.

▶ General

> New Year

The new year in the Luxson Cluster occurs during the spring equinox, and is considered a day when all things are reborn. Festivals are commonly held throughout the islands to celebrate, with individuals and families coming together to commemorate the year that has gone by and share their hopes for the next.

> Summer Solstice

Though marked by different festivals and local events on each specific island, but the day of the summer solstice itself is generally used to mark the creation of the cluster itself. Most of the festivities revolve around the veneration of and thanksgiving to Fallow.

> Darkest Night

Darkest Night is, appropriately, a festival held on the darkest night of the year. For the Luxson Cluster, this date generally happens sometime in late autumn.  It is one of the largest festivals of the year, with the populace of the islands flooding out into the streets to ward off the darkness with a long night of music, glowing lights, and masquerade-like celebrations.

> Autumnal Equinox

The autumnal equinox is celebrated in the Luxson Cluster and Fallow’s Island in the form of harvest festivals. It is also during this time that the highest-quality crops are set aside for the elaborately preserved or prepared foods that will be served during the Winter Festival.

> Winter Festival

Held around the winter solstice, the Winter Festival is essentially a week-long feast. Considered by many to be the highlight of the year, drinking and merrymaking are encouraged and generally expected, along with the sharing of traditional foods such as pies and tamales. The week after the Winter Festival is usually a time where families break out their strangest hangover cures.

> Fallow’s Blessing

A common rite of passage in the cluster is to have children visit and confluence with Fallow at one of its temples on Fallow’s Island, so that they might receive its wisdom and encouragement to grow strong. While many see this as a chore, some children find the experience extremely fulfilling.

▶ Luxson

> Day of Memorial

While most islands in the cluster hold some sort of memorial day around the date that marks either the end of the terror plague or the containment of the surface horror, it’s observed most widely in Luxson.

As the years go by, the event has gone from a very sober holiday to a more governmental holiday. Those who were alive for the war itself generally take it far more seriously than the younger generation; partly due to the older generation’s general unwillingness or inability to talk about the events of the war.

> Funerals

As the meat industry is generally looked down upon in Luxson, it isn’t a method often chosen by those who can afford burials. It is still legal to be a meat donor in Luxson, though.

Most burials in Luxson take place either in the parks and farming districts, where the only open ground is really available, or in towering mausoleums interspersed throughout the more developed regions of the island.

> Marriage

Marriage is a very casual and generally very personal affair in Luxson. The exact celebrations are usually very tied to the tastes and beliefs of the individuals involved.

> Birthdays

Birthdays are commonly celebrated by large gatherings of friends and family, and usually a large meal is served. Gift-giving isn’t generally an expected thing as the focus is more on re-affirming one’s ties to their loved ones and communities.

▶ Monte

> Rut / The Summer Tournament

De’moneres go into rut once each summer, and over time this period of general aggression was honed into the annual fighting tournaments held in the arena of central Monte. While smaller tournaments and matches are held throughout the year, they pale in size and grandeur to the summer rut.

> Martyr’s Day

The exact origins of the holiday are unclear and contested, but it is observed by every district in Monte. Martyr’s Day is observed as a single day of armistice between all peoples, castes, and factions in Monte. Breaking this armistice is considered immoral, unlucky, or inviting misfortune.

> Funerals

Funerals in Monte vary wildly depending on who exactly the funeral is for. The cheapest and most common method is for an individual to donate their corpse to a meat processing facility, where it will either be harvested as flesh or burnt into ash to be sold as affordable food for the general populace.

Upper caste funerals generally involve either cremation or embalming of some sort, with the remains of the body that are left over being interred in a family tomb with a measure of their personal wealth. These tombs remain as status symbols for the families who maintain them and as prime targets for rival clans or grave robbers.

> Marriage

Elaborate marriage ceremonies and enormous receptions are the norm for Monte, and can stretch on for weeks at a time depending on the families involved. Marriage is a time for extreme pageantry as well as the internal shuffling of the now-joined families’ power structures.

Inter-caste marriages are considered taboo as a rule, though not explicitly illegal in most regions of Monte. This being said, it generally happens in secret or very quietly. Such partnerships are dangerous, as it’s not uncommon for the lower-caste partner to be killed or otherwise driven off in order to preserve the “integrity” of the higher-caste partner’s lineage.

If two members of a different castes manage to have a child together, their child would automatically be considered a member of the lower-ranking caste of their pairing, depending on which traits they show and how strongly they display those traits. The child is also generally considered to have a higher social standing than others of their caste due to having a higher “ranked” parent in their lineage, provided that they don’t display joker traits.

> Birthdays

A de’moneres child’s birth is only formally celebrated 52 days after they first hatch, as by then it can generally be assured that the child will be relatively hale from thereon out.

As with marriages, birthdays can be elaborate affairs among the de’moneres in Monte. For those of more powerful families it is generally a time where allies show their fealty, either through specific ritualistic actions, gifts, or oaths. Average citizens, conversely, generally celebrate with gifts, good food, and friendly company.

▶ Fallow’s Island

> Funerals

Most funerals in Fallow’s Island are simple affairs, with bodies being shrouded and then interred directly in the dirt so that they may easily decompose and “return to Fallow”. 

Certain individuals, usually those of great distinction, may choose to have their bodies preserved by being encased in amber. The pose that their bodies are arranged in, as well as the outfits and items the bodies are dressed in prior to encasement are usually ritualistic or relevant to what actions or work they were known for in life. 

These amber mummies are considered to be extremely holy objects, and will generally be enshrined in the various temples of Fallow’s Island, or attached to metal or stone weights and sunk into the seas around the island. Desecrating these mummies is considered sacrilegious to many throughout all of the islands, though there is a demand for them on the black market as a luxury food/medicine for de’moneres.

> Marriage

Marriage traditions vary depending on the culture of those involved, but is generally a more subdued and private affair on Fallow’s Island. More often than not, couples will simply begin cohabitation and declare that they are married.

> Birthdays

Birthdays on Fallow’s Island are usually celebrated together, with a single large celebration for all of the children born in the same month. They are generally seen as a loving indulgence for children, thus they become less elaborate or may even pass unnoticed as a person ages.

[goodnewsus]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[stevefinnellp-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[stevefinnell-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[megaonewayjesuslove-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org

[workofonlinecalling]

Make Online Video Calls and Get Closer to Your Loved Ones

Live Chat Software for Websites is a useful instrument that needs online affiliations. A basic foundation of this thing can pull as a best need blowing benefits. It will run speaking be balanced by the alliance needs. A connection expert can hold a changed trade with the customer, which can later help in fitting the things, beginning now and into the not so distant understanding their nuts and bolts and supporting the customer base.

Despite whether it's a visit to your store or your site, securing customer persisting quality is a fundamental bit of customer advantage culture and it can happen correctly when they get the prodding power for their money. Valuing a tenacious trade with the customer through Live Chat Software gives you an unrivalled insight of their needs and demands. You can take in the shopping perspectives of existing purchasers so at whatever point they go for a purchase, they may get accurately what suits them, in this way making a penchant that their expense was to an extraordinary degree beneficial. This invigorated obtaining foundation will constantly make them come back to you.

Live call Software web application is a remarkable strategy provider for informational, accommodating, travel, vehicle and distinctive grouped sorts of objectives. It can in like path fill in as a general stage for the exhaustive visitors to discover the plans rapidly. Phone or email reinforce, on the other hand, can wind up being frightful and even irrelevant every now and then.

The gainful and right information is basic to shutting a game-plan, paying little regard to whether it is an online store or an isolated store. Wherever on a potential customer needs more information starting at now the person being referred to can go to a decision. This information, as a rule, identifies with the thing in that limit, sending and stock trade. So it is pivotal that agents make this information viably open on their store to draw in a smart strategy.

People shop online to avoid goading by the business delegate, to save time and imperativeness, to get the best brand at their doorstep, to find minute solutions to their request, portion convenience and overall that we can check and enquirer about different things and headways at one time. Offering a live call application on your site is one way that customers can quickly talk with your association to find answers to request without feeling dubious.

From the merchant's point of view, live talk gadget licenses reinforce staff interfaces with a customer visiting its site, in a one-on-one correspondence to offer help. The thought is to get in a human point into virtual shopping. People like to buy from people, they have to get some answers concerning things, comfort themselves before placing assets into it. It's comparable to walking around a store and having a staff singular invites you. It makes an association, a one-on-one discourse.

Two or three shopping compartment providers have started late begun giving free live talk programming. Not only is the thing free regardless they have been made open to any person who needs a free talk program, not just their unmistakable shippers. We are particularly watchful that trade programs have been around for quite a while yet starting in the modestly later past, online business programming affiliations have prohibited them with their answers as a segment.

Regardless, inquire about has exhibited that mechanical gatherings like free live visit programming can if all else fails to refresh change rates by a huge measure without contributing extra essentialness. Demand directed by systems for visit will impel chop down email from customers. The common online client isn't one that is known for flexibility for the quick reality that decisions are just a tick away. In this way, senders should wager on any open entry they can get hold of to complete a strategy quickly.

Live call programming, insignificant words, is moved Instant errand solitary programming like flood transport particular, Google talk or MSN delegate with a refinement that it might participate to any site, what's more, is bundled with fitting embellishments. At whatever point joined, this thing will empower the site page managers, to live to stimulate overseers or perhaps re-appropriated talk boss to pursue the webpage visitors reliably and they can respect the visitors for an online visit like how the good 'ol fashioned courses of action delegate pushing toward the customer in a physical store for help. If the visitor sees the talk welcome, by, the visitor and visit controllers can have a live talk session.

Give Phone Support:

You need to understand that isolated from giving minute reinforce you furthermore need to pack in order to give phone support to your visitors. This is in light of the fact that moderately 20% of the customers try to look for phone support where they can call up and get their request unwound. The customers can call explicitly to the numbers and make a request where they are dealt with the right help. It is a convincing business area plan where you can get 100% to revamp for your site. When you find that there has been an extension in the number of visitors to your webpage and that too in a concise time period, you can expect higher rankings in the differing web crawlers that would make you feel glad of the organizations that you have given. This would moreover help in getting your site predominant with straightforward access to the customers. You have to acknowledge what to look like forward to get the trustworthy and affirmed programming that would not make you worry over anything. You would moreover find that it is definitely not hard to present and there would not be any issue in lighting up all of the inquiries of the customers who visit your site.

Some Important Points:

Know your objectives visitors logically.

Help the site visitor at their motivation of need.

Rapidly Resolve Pre-bargains ask.

Development your main limit and Productivity.

Development your business volume.

Decay your working costs.

Extended Customer Satisfaction and brand persistent.

In case anyone visits the live help programming energized site page, the embedded substance will post the new visitor data to the online talk server and thusly, the server will pass the new visitor information to the live authorities. Resulting in getting the new visitor data from the server, official solace application plays the sound to alert the boss about new visitors. Boss console will similarly show information like city, state and country, catchphrases they used in a web search for the instrument to accomplish the page, past visitor history expecting any and talk messages enduring any. This information will help the official with understanding the centrality of the visitor.

Online call forming PC programs is a store of affiliations that will enable a correspondence channel between the webpage's visitors and site page proprietors or focus people intensely. Routinely, It incorporates three basic modules, to be explicit, Operator console or visit application, Chat server and talk window. Visit Software providers will give a little HTML code after the join and site proprietors need to interweave this code in their site pages for interfacing live help advantage.

[theconservativebrief]

As a former journalist who went to work at a startup, solicitations for tech industry events show up in my inbox with some frequency. But this was a new one:

“We are bringing together the sacred plant medicine Ayahuasca with leaders at the world’s most innovative startups,” the email said. “Together we will go on a journey to deeply explore our individual and collective purpose.”

Over the subsequent weeks, follow-up pitches about the Costa Rica retreat offered testimonials about the benefits of ayahuasca from the likes of the bestselling author and entrepreneurial figurehead Tim Ferriss and pro surfer Kelly Slater. “Every participant will be positively transformed. The lives they live, companies they build and examples they set will transform the world.”

My first thought is that I would love to be a fly on the wall at such an event. But there’s a point that gets lost in the sensationalist glee surrounding the idea of a bunch of tech bros tripping in the jungle: “Counterculture,” whether that means partying, looking down on mainstream religion, or embracing a hodgepodge of eastern religious values, is the norm in “Silicon Valley” — a catchall term I’m using here to broadly describe the technology workers not just in the Bay Area but also in New York and Los Angeles.

If you don’t fit into that — whether because you’re older, belong to a traditional religion that comes in conflict with countercultural values, or just aren’t that into partying — it can be hard to fit in. And that matters in an economically dominant field that’s hard enough to penetrate even without cultural obstacles.

Working in the industry, especially as a former Googler, when I hear allegations that tech companies have a baked-in bias against conservatism or claims that conservative employees didn’t feel comfortable being open, my immediate reaction has been: Well, of course they don’t. And such allegations have become a chorus on the right. But I think the kind of conservatism that Silicon Valley is hostile to has less to do with politics and far more to do with lifestyle.

Julie Fredrickson, a longtime tech entrepreneur and conservative Christian, tells me she frequently feels her religious beliefs are out of place in the tech world. “I’m confident that discovering I’m a Calvinist would lead to some awkward conversations I don’t necessarily want to have with Silicon Valley folks,” says Fredrickson, CEO of the cosmetics company Stowaway. “People who have actually, very carefully considered belief systems, whether religious or otherwise, don’t always feel safe expressing it.”

“What, really?” is a typical reaction among the entrepreneurial class when she mentions her religiosity, which she avoids bringing up unless asked, says Fredrickson. She added that she feels the need to explain her faith to reassure previously skeptical parties that she’s “rational.”

Fredrickson also was not raised Christian and frequently mentions how she came to it on her own terms and in tandem with her love of math (“a long story,” she says). It’s a stark contrast to the industry stereotype that anyone who adheres to organized religion must have had that belief imposed on them by their family.

At Google, few co-workers would blink an eye if you told them that you spent the previous weekend attending an electronic music festival in an otter costume, but you might get some funny looks if you admitted you went to church every weekend. I used to prowl around on a listserv of Googlers who considered themselves agnostics, atheists, and skeptics; the responses on a thread about the revelation that a small group of Christian employees had booked a conference room for a weekly prayer group ranged from, “We employ people who pray?” to “Is that really appropriate to do at work?” (Note: This is a company that hosted Justin Bieber concerts and pie-eating contests at the office.)

Religious conservatives aren’t the only people who find themselves shut out of Silicon Valley’s hegemonic culture. Thanks to its well-documented worship of youth — which ties back to the same ’60s-inspired counterculturalism — ageism is just as pervasive as one might expect.

It is, I think, the industry’s most insidious “-ism,” in part because of how little attention it gets. There was no hashtag activism movement launched when nearly 300 people joined an age discrimination lawsuit against Google, or when a report found that job opportunities in Silicon Valley started to dry up when employees hit their late 40s. It was even revealed that cosmetic surgery treatments were soaring in the Bay Area on behalf of employees who were afraid of looking their age.

Silicon Valley’s biases reveal a deep distaste for anything that could be considered “square.” The euphemistic HR term “culture fit” is meant to ensure employees are comfortable with a company’s ethos and attitudes. In reality, it’s a concept that’s more often used to exclude employees, regardless of age, who would prefer a quiet dinner at home rather than join their co-workers for Thirsty Thursday.

An obsessive attention to culture fit becomes an even bigger problem as the tech industry expands and continues to be a major driver of job growth, and companies like Amazon and Apple announce enormous new headquarters that may wind up in parts of the country that — the horror! — may have voted for Trump in 2016.

That’s why, upon reading about James Damore’s decision to bring a class-action lawsuit against Google for discriminating against white male conservatives, my mind jumped not to aggrieved Trump supporters, but rather to culturally conservative people, particularly those who follow traditional Western religions.

In Silicon Valley, to be perceived as inadequately open-minded — as defined by the norms of this peculiar culture — induces awkwardness at best and, sometimes, outright hostility. It’s a place where that false binary of “rationality” versus “faith” is often accepted as truth.

Half of tech workers identified as atheist or agnostic, according to a survey by the Lincoln Network, an organization dedicated to advancing principles of economic conservatism in the tech industry. That’s compared to just 7 percent of the US population who identify as atheist or agnostic (although an additional 16 percent identify as religiously unaffiliated, but without either of those two labels), and the respondents in this particular survey skewed slightly conservative.

At Google, I spent every day in a work environment with a specific cultural uniformity — one with its own rituals and deities that come to feel decidedly contradictory for a population that so fervently rejects “faith.”

One quick scan through the email from the ayahuasca invitation, and a pattern of vocabulary emerges: “Sacred,” “purpose,” “transformation” — with this kind of language, you may as well be in church. Companies profess to be driven not by mere secular profit but a belief in changing the world; until his death, a speech by Steve Jobs was treated like a sermon.

Yet tech’s avowed rationalism and skepticism has some very obvious contradictions. There are prominent factions in Silicon Valley who would scoff at anyone’s belief that Jesus Christ could really perform miracles but who would have no problem believing a tweet that read “Just turned water into wine!” if it came from Elon Musk.

And as proved by tech’s reaction when Musk claimed he was pivoting from electric cars and batteries to selling flamethrowers and space cars, there are plenty of people who don’t question him when he’s joking. This, in turn, willed Musk to take himself seriously: He was joking at first, but enough people took him at face value that he ultimately sent one of his cars into space and sold 20,000 flamethrowers in around 100 hours.

It’s because Elon Musk sounds like he’s grounded in the language of science and invention, even when he’s being ridiculous. In recent years, Silicon Valley, or at least a sufficient number of prominent people in it, have shown themselves to be highly susceptible to some pretty irrational behavior if an idea somehow sounds scientifically valid.

In his forthcoming book Super Natural, which was previewed in an opinion piece for the New York Times called “Don’t Believe in God? Maybe You’ll Try UFOs,” psychology professor Clay Routledge argues that faith is a fundamental part of human behavior. Routledge explained to me over the phone that rationality and irrationality don’t exist in a binary. “Every person experiences both sides of these neural systems.”

For Routledge, people who are religious understand that they can switch between both sides of their brain — the rational and the more intuitive. He believes that people who flat-out deny that they have a more intuitive side have a tougher time distinguishing between the two. “The irony is that a lot of times it’s people who actually are religious explicitly, and know that, that are better at switching between the two modes,” he explained.

Everything I’m calling out about Silicon Valley comes with a caveat: I’m guilty of participating in much of this. I have gone to my fair share of counterculture-inspired events at the invitation of tech industry colleagues and thought little of it. I’ve also generally felt welcome and comfortable amid tech companies’ relaxed corporate cultures that encourage employees to bring their personalities and identities to work, blurring the line between the personal and professional. My thinking had always been, well, who wouldn’t like this?

But perhaps there are few more important mantras in Silicon Valley than the simple reminder that not everyone is like me.

Last month I ended up going to a tech retreat in hipster beach mecca Tulum, Mexico — the kind of event where the agenda included both sunrise meditations and parties until 4 am and was likely to draw the kind of crowd that felt it had the stamina for both. Much to my relief, it wasn’t like that: Many attendees were visibly older than the millennial demographic, and though there was an open bar every night, there were also alcohol-free meetups for those who were sober or in recovery.

Some people had even brought their small children along for the weekend. Yes, there were those late-night poolside parties with DJs, sweat lodge ceremonies, and talks about astrology too. But there were plenty of people there who I couldn’t imagine signing up for a Tim Ferriss-endorsed ayahuasca retreat any time soon.

The people who don’t fit today’s stereotypically freewheeling Silicon Valley mold, whether due to religious faith, family status, or simply a distaste for partying with their co-workers, are likely in the majority. As my former Google colleague Adam Singer tweeted in the wake of a notorious (and likely sensationalized) Vanity Fair piece about alleged “sex parties” in Silicon Valley, “99.999% of folk in Bay Area don’t go to sex parties, microdose LSD at work or drink water from the toilet.” (That last item a reference to a New York Times article about an outlandish trend of drinking untreated “raw water.”) Singer concluded: “But they make for good media stories to talk about the fringes.”

He’s right. But when the fringes have enormous influence over the culture and its perception, there’s a problem. Silicon Valley holds vast economic influence, and it needs to be open to hiring and retaining employees who don’t fit its image. Without it, paradoxically, an industry and culture that professes progressivism, open-mindedness, and a devotion to science and empiricism ends up becoming the most exclusionary and prone to magical thinking.

Caroline McCarthy recently finished the residency program at TED, in which she researched the advertising industry’s role in political partisanship. A former journalist and Google marketer, she now works in digital advertising.

First Person is Vox’s home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our submission guidelines, and pitch us at firstperson@vox.com.

Original Source -> Silicon Valley has a problem with conservatives. But not the political kind.

via The Conservative Brief

[ixvyupdates]

Furloughed in Paradise: My Journey From Teacher to Community Advocate in Hawaii

Thousands of miles from any continent is a cluster of islands, set in a crystal blue sea, beneath a sky of flawless serenity. It’s not just a land of unparalleled beauty. It’s the place I’m proud to call home.

It’s also a place with unique educational opportunities and challenges.

My Story

For me, the fight for educational equity in Hawaii is personal. My career in education started as a special-education English teacher at a local Title I public middle school. Like so many teachers, my goal was to instill a love of learning and reading in my students, given that some were reading as many as three to five grade levels behind.

I’ll always remember Azadia and her infectious smile. She was a reluctant reader, and when I told her she was very cool for reading, I was rewarded with one of those fantastic smiles.

And there was Bruyson. After seeing him blossom in my speech-and-debate club and watching his confidence grow as a learner, I felt he would be better served in a general education setting. So after lots of discussions with his family, we coordinated our efforts and moved him into an appropriate setting.

With many other academic and social breakthroughs with students throughout the year, I couldn’t wait to loop up to seventh grade with my same kids. But that excitement was short-lived.

I remember being called into the school library the next year and being blindsided by devastating news. My colleagues and I were told that 17 school days would be cut from the year because of a budget crisis showdown. Teachers were told explicitly that we could not even volunteer to come on campus and teach those days because of liability and the fact that kids were the bargaining chips in this high-stakes game of winners and losers.

At the time, I didn’t know how to speak out, and neither did my students or their families. There were parents who organically occupied the governor’s office as a sign of frustration, but there were no other powerful or well-organized voices in the public debate that could stop or end these “Furlough Fridays.”

I decided to get involved in advocacy so that these kinds of situations don’t ever happen again. Today, across our state, there are many students like Azadia and Bruyson sitting in classrooms, hoping that we will deliver on our promise to provide them with a great and equitable education.

Seizing Opportunities

Hawaii has made some great gains in education over the past 10 years. More of our students are taking AP courses and far fewer are missing school each day. More of our students are enrolling in college than ever before, and they are more prepared for their studies when they arrive.

Hawaii also offers students a tremendous range of educational options, from career academies and early college high school opportunities, to schools that focus on project-based learning, arts integration and Hawaiian-language immersion.

But this progress isn’t enough.

Hawaii students continue to trail behind 45 other states in eighth-grade reading on the Nation’s Report Card. Native Hawaiian students were at least 25 percentage points lower in language arts and math proficiency than their White and Asian peers. And there are still gaps in supports for special education, English-learner and low-income students. Many students also don’t have access to critical opportunities in STEM and computer science that develop skills at the core of the jobs of the future.

These facts about Hawaii don’t reflect the potential and brilliance of our kids, nor do they represent an environment where all kids have choice in college and career.

That’s why I’ve been honored to work alongside many diverse community members to launch HawaiiKidsCAN this year to address these issues. Guided by our shared dream of helping all kids get a great education, we aim to make participation in this collective educational effort engaging, effective, and fun. We are a platform for change in our communities and our state, empowering students and families.

We envision a system that promotes and celebrates multilingualism, multiculturalism, diversity and our Hawaiian host culture and language. We believe in innovation, flexibility, and autonomy in doing what works for kids. We envision an education system where school leaders and teachers are celebrated as professionals and individuals.

Want to learn more about education in Hawaii? Visit hawaiikidscan.org and sign up for our emails to stay in the know.

Our voyage to the future of education in Hawaii is just beginning. We invite you to stay tuned and join us for the adventure ahead.

Photo by HawaiiKidsCAN/Facebook.

Furloughed in Paradise: My Journey From Teacher to Community Advocate in Hawaii syndicated from http://ift.tt/2i93Vhl

[bluewatsons]

Amy Chandler, Narrating the self-injured body, 40 Med Humanit 111 (2013)

Abstract

Illness narratives have traditionally been used as a conceptual tool for exploring experiences of chronic illness or disease. In this paper, I suggest that Frank's typology of illness narratives (chaos, restitution and quest) also offers an illuminating approach to analysing accounts of self-injury, demonstrating the diverse ways in which self-injury is practiced, experienced and narrated. Drawing on 24 narrative interviews with 12 people who had self-injured, I focus on participants’ accounts of their self-injured bodies. The approach is phenomenological, and concerned with talk about the experience of living with and in a body that has been marked by self-injury. Thus, the act of self-injury is not the sole focus, and particular attention is paid to accounts of the bodily aftermath: scars, marks and wounds. Scars left by self-injury can be seen as communicative, and the analysis developed here demonstrates some of the various ways that these marks may be read. Attending to these diverse narratives can contribute to the provision of compassionate, non-judgemental care for patients who have self-injured. Further, highlighting the existence of different ways of narrating the self-injured body may offer an optimistic resource for people who have self-injured.

Introduction

People who self-injure can be seen to occupy an uncertain position, one which unsettles notions of sanity and madness, and dramatically breaches imagined boundaries between physical and mental health. Self-injury1 is a contested practice, with long-standing debates regarding how it should be named and categorised.1 ,2 In part, this complexity arises from the diverse meanings that are attached to self-injury, as identified by a growing body of qualitative research with people who have self-injured and clinical practitioners who suggest self-injury is variously a method of managing emotions; self-punishment; interpersonal manipulation; coping mechanism; attention seeking; emotional expression; or communication of distress.3–7 Evidently, there are tensions among these meanings, and this may particularly arise when contrasting the views of healthcare staff with patients.8–10 The existence of such tensions underlines the importance of attending to the diverse narratives of individuals who self-injure in order to support compassionate, non-judgemental clinical responses.11 ,12

Illness narratives have become a widely used approach in scholarly work seeking to illuminate the importance of patient experience.13–17 The concept and use of illness narratives have been much debated within and without the medical humanities.18–21 In particular, concerns have been raised about the power of illness narratives to supply access to patient's ‘inner worlds’, while others have questioned the framing of narrative as a ‘universal’ mode of communication and experience.19 ,21 Such critiques are not to be dismissed and underline the importance of approaching narrative analysis with care. A great strength of narrative analysis is that it enables examination of the complex ties between individual stories and wider cultural contexts.22 ,23 This need not involve any attempt to access the ‘inner world’ of people's experiences, and this is certainly not the aim of this paper.24 Rather, in what follows, I focus on analysing accounts of self-injury provided in a particular context (an interview with me). The commonalities between the accounts provided, and especially their parallels with other work exploring illness narratives, demonstrate the importance of wider cultural resources in shaping the ways in which self-injury is understood.

Analysing self-injury using the concept of illness narratives may not, at first glance, seem appropriate. Contested as it is, self-injury is not necessarily an illness, though some would argue it should be seen as such: ‘non-suicidal self-injury’ has recently been proposed as a psychiatric diagnosis and it remains unclear how such changes in categorisation might shape individual understandings.1 ,25 Further, while illness narratives have been largely used to explore accounts of chronic conditions such as spinal cord injury or cancer,26 ,27 individual acts of self-injury might more accurately be described as acute. Nevertheless, for some, the practice of self-injury can be experienced as compulsive and difficult to stop;4 therefore, repeated self-injury could perhaps be described as chronic. In some cases, the consequences of self-injury include long-lasting, permanent marks and scars. Thus, even when individuals have effectively ‘stopped’ injuring themselves, they may carry noticeable evidence of their past behaviour; as such, the visible, corporeal effects of self-injury in the form of scarring may also be understood as chronic.

Narrative approaches to the study of self-harm (self-injury and self-poisoning) have indicated the importance and diversity of different modes of accounting for the practice. Written accounts of self-injury were examined by Boynton and Auerbach28 among teenagers, and Harris3 among adult women. These analyses demonstrated the wide range of ways in which narratives of self-injury were constructed and situated within broader cultural framings regarding gender, bodies, spirituality, punishment and pleasure. Accounts of the experience of living with a body marked by self-injury have been little discussed in existing literature. Additionally, while research has clearly highlighted the rich and diverse meanings expressed via narratives about self-injury, it has focused largely on the voices of women or those in clinical treatment.3,28 ,29 This paper builds upon previous work, exploring life-story narratives of living with a self-injuring and self-injured body, among a diverse group of men and women. Leading from the finding of Sinclair and Green29 that Frank's typology of illness30 narratives provided a useful framework for accounts of moving away from self-harm, I demonstrate that this typology can be extended, with some modification, to illuminate accounts of living with a body that has been self-injured. Frank's30 approach is particularly well suited to exploring accounts of self-injury because it invites reflection on embodied experience, and on the intimate relationship between bodies and narrative. My application of Frank's typology of illness narratives (quest, chaos, restitution)30 to self-injury partially addresses calls for the use of phenomenological approaches to understand illness experience,31 ,32 demonstrating the salience of this method for those whose bodies are permanently marked by a practice viewed by many as pathological.

Listening to narratives of self-injury

The narratives discussed here were generated during research that aimed to explore the ‘lived experience’ of self-injury, using life-story interviews with 12 people who had self-injured. Participants were recruited through community sites in Scotland, UK, and related diverse experiences with self-injury and with formal support services. Between 2007 and 2008, each person was interviewed twice, with the first interview focusing on their ‘life story’, and the second exploring their understanding and experiences of self-injury more explicitly. Interviewees were aged between 21 and 37; five were men and seven women. Of the 12 participants, eight suggested that they had ‘stopped’ injuring themselves, between 1 and 8 years prior to the research. Four indicated that they continued to injure themselves, and all four reported doing so between the two interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis incorporated thematic and narrative approaches, informed by sociological theorisation on emotion and embodiment.22,33

The research was approved by the University of Edinburgh ethics committee (School of Social and Political Science). All participants provided informed, written consent including consent to reproduce quotations from the interviews in published work. Participants were given the opportunity to read transcripts, though only one participant took this up. The second interview provided further opportunity to encourage active engagement in the narratives being produced during the research; in the second interview, participants were invited to contribute their own themes for discussion. This reflected the original aims of the project which had been collaborative,34 though in practice this did not work out as planned (see 35).

The analysis presented here is based on naturalised transcriptions of interview discussions.36 Thus, the analysis might be said to focus on what Frank called ‘enacted’ stories (p. 116),30 though these stories were generated artfully in a research interview. During data collection, transcription and analysis, I was concerned with how self-injury was talked about and in order to do this, it seemed important to preserve, as far as possible, the manner in which participants told their stories. These accounts are different, then, from many of the published illness narratives Frank drew on when he set out a typology of illness narratives in The Wounded Storyteller.30 The accounts I discuss here are certainly ‘messier’; they represent stories told at a specific point in time, to a particular person. They may not be the stories that participants would tell now.

Despite the ‘messiness’ of participants’ accounts, early on in analysis I began to identify commonalities and contrasts in how talk about self-injury, and self-injury scars, was structured. Particularly with regard to accounts of self-injured bodies, Frank's typology of illness narratives (chaos, quest and restitution) provides a useful approach to exploring these structures.30 As with other studies using this typology,27 ,37 the boundaries between the three types were not always clear and participants’ accounts often contained elements of all three. The most frequently provided narrative incorporated both quest and restitution narratives. Typically, this entailed participants emphasising their lack of regret over their past practice of self-injury, suggesting involvement in the practice had ultimately changed either the individual or a situation for the better. However, alongside this, participants highlighted ambivalent feelings about scars, and detailed attempts they had made to remove, minimise or obscure scars. In common with previous research on illness narratives,26 chaos narratives were less common, with only one participant's narrative aligning closely with this type.

Restitution: returning to a preself-injured state

Restitution narratives address a desire for a return to a preillness, or preinjury, state. While in some cases (eg, spinal cord injury26) such a return may be extremely unlikely, the wish and hope to do so nevertheless form an important aspect of the overall narrative. Six participants alluded to ideas of returning the body to a preself-injured state by either concealing scarring with tattoos or undergoing surgical interventions to minimise them. However, in most of these accounts scars were discussed with some ambivalence, with participants’ accounts indicating little commitment to removing scars entirely. Only one participant, Justin, provided a dominant restitution narrative. In most other cases, participants suggested that they did not ‘mind’ their scars, but simultaneously indicated concern and anxiety around what others might think—or assume—on seeing scars.

Francis: I suppose there's a bit of disparity cos, in my mind I sort of feel like I'm OK with it, like, I'm perfectly, happy with, […] what I've, you know I don't have, any reg- I don't really regret doing it or I'm, really ashamed of it or, you know anything like that, but at the same time I'm not … I don't, wouldn't want to just openly talk about it at work […] I think that's basically cos of, I think they might have preconceptions.

Francis did not talk explicitly about removing his scars, though he did describe being cautious about when they were revealed. Careful management of the visibility of self-injury scars was common across the sample, and appeared to lead from concerns about the perceptions of others. Such concerns also seemed to underlie accounts that explicitly addressed scar removal. Justin's narrative provided a detailed and involved account of his efforts to remove and conceal scarring to both of his arms:

Justin: I also looked into like you know, trying to see, er, ways of kind of you know, making scar, tissue look less, obvious and stuff erm, … I got this quite interesting stuff that was like em, … kind of like em, a gel pad, a silicone gel pad […] that kind of, comp[ressed] and actually, made- you know you had to wear it, like every night […] and then, like it consistently kind of pushed it down […] but then if you don't keep using it you know it sort of, they sort of show more […] and you end up kinda going back to the, state […] but, em, that flattened it off […]so that, you know that was again, kind of, you know trying to kind of, get to the point where you don't feel kind of worried about kind of….

Justin described going on to get a large tattoo over the now flattened scars in order to further conceal the marks. This was the most unequivocal account of removing scarring caused by self-injury provided in this study. One other participant, Harriet, described having a medical procedure carried out in order to minimise scarring to her arms. Harriet did not detail exactly why she had undergone the procedure, but elsewhere in her account she suggested a commitment to continuing to self-injure, emphasising the importance of hiding this in order to avoid interference from others. While Justin's narrative indicated an overall desire to have his body reflect his current status as someone who did not self-injure, Harriet's indicated a wish to continue self-injuring without undue interference, maintaining an impression that she no longer self-injured while continuing to do so in a more hidden manner. The ‘fix’ being discussed in each of these accounts is not the practice of self-injury, but rather, the enduring aftermath.

With the exception of Justin and perhaps Harriet, participants’ accounts of scar removal or minimisation tended to be more ambivalent. These narratives referred to attempts to minimise or conceal scars, while simultaneously affirming that they sometimes felt confident or comfortable with them.

Emma: [a friend] once asked me, if, … if I could, go back again, … you know, if I was actually embarrassed by, … my scars and things and, …and if, it, … Em [pause] you know if I would do it again if I went back […] and I said, I probably would, still do it but, ... I do kind of regret having done it, at the same time, em [pause] but [pause] it was a part of my life for, [pause] a good, …10 years, so, … em, [pause] well, a very bad 10 years actually not a very good 10 years [later] I do regret the fact that I have so many scars that I can't [pause] you know, that I can't wear t-shirts around my parents.

As Emma reflected on this remembered exchange she was hesitant, noting that while she would not want to change anything about her past practice of self-injury, she nevertheless regretted the visible marks it had left, which she felt she had to continue to conceal from her parents. Other participants talked similarly about carefully choosing when and where to reveal or hide their scars.

Restitution narratives are portrayed as representing a medicalised approach to illness—one that searches for a cure or ‘fix’ for the illness or problem.26–28 The restitution narrative is understood to cohere closely with modernist expectations that illnesses can be cured or fixed.37 With self-injury, where there is permanent scarring, such a fix may be practically impossible. Given the difficulty of entirely removing or concealing scars, it may be that people who carry such marks are therefore more inclined to provide accounts which defend their existence. Indeed, this was at least a possibility for most, as scars left by self-injury were not described as inherently problematic. Unlike the illnesses, injuries and conditions addressed in other studies using the typology,27 ,30 ,37 scars themselves did not cause discomfort. Nonetheless, they were framed as problematic, requiring management, attention and accounting for.

In this study, although all participants talked about concealing scars—occasionally permanently—only Justin appeared to have made a concerted effort to remove all trace of them. Others, as with Emma and Francis, were far more ambivalent, and while they might conceal them in certain situations, removing their scars outright was not a feature of their narrative. This underlines the potential importance of the presence of long-term scarring in shaping the possible narratives available to those who have self-injured, and perhaps suggests that such scars position self-injury alongside other chronic conditions which similarly struggle to maintain a restitution narrative.37 Importantly, participants did not provide restitution narratives about ongoing self-injury and, as demonstrated though Harriet's account, it was possible to provide an account of medical intervention to remove scarring, while actively self-injuring.

Chaotic bodies: gaining and losing control

There is a difference between the ambivalence expressed by Francis and Emma, and the more explicitly negative—perhaps chaotic—account provided by Anna. The chaos narrative is one of the more challenging of Frank's typology.30 Frank argued that narratives characterised by chaos indicate a lack of narrative, an absence of coherence to the events or experiences being related: ‘lived chaos makes reflection, and consequently story-telling, impossible’ (p. 98).30 Chaos in illness narratives infers a lack of hope, and a lack of control over the events befalling the teller. As with the study by Sparkes and Smith26 of narratives of spinal cord injury, only one participant provided a narrative that adhered to a more chaotic form when discussing living with a self-injured body. Chaos, in Anna's narrative, was reflected in her orientation towards the future, as well as her description of her body, and the scars it carried. Other participants’ accounts were often typified by chaos when talking about their early experiences with self-injury. In each case, self-injury was described as a response to chaos, a way of coping with a chaotic situation. Only in Anna's account did the chaos appear to extend to the aftermath of self-injury as well.

Anna, like some of those described above, indicated some attempt to remove the scars generated by her practice of self-injury. However, in contrast, she emphasised the futility of her efforts. More importantly, she reflected that the presence of her scars provided a reason to continue to self-injure

Anna: :… the scars are there for, forever now, so [pause] I think that's kinda a bad thing though, because it, … see if it's something that faded over time, you might sorta go, oh well, it all faded so, that's it I'll no bother. But I've got these scars now, they're there now, the damage is done, I just cut on top eh scars now, just, covered… totally utterly covered [pause] so it's like, phew [pause] what's the point, of stopping.

Anna suggests therefore that the nature and extent of her scars provided a reason not to stop—‘what's the point’. Anna's discussion of her scars reflected her broader narrative which was often pessimistic in relation to her life in general, reflected also in her accounts about her body. She described herself as having an intensely uncomfortable relationship with her body, which was manifested in feelings of self-loathing and disgust, and practices which, as well as cutting herself, included disordered eating.

Anna: I just have this, sortae warped body image, and I don't know if that's, again, I don't know if that's part ae the ... the self-harm, d'you know, I don't know if that's why [pause] like I hate this body so I'll just, [pause] abuse it [laughs] […] I mean I cannae, can't look in the mirror, cannae look at myself [long pause] just, disgusting.

Anna's account here and during the previous excerpt was uncertain and hesitant; her tone markedly deflated. These more negative sections of Anna's interviews aligned closely with the chaos narrative form, lacking focus and hope, providing a sense that the teller did not feel ‘in control’ of the situations she described. Anna did not present a narrative which was wholly ‘in chaos’, however, and she provided a more hopeful account at other times in her interviews. In particular, at some points her narrative indicated her practice of self-injury might provide an escape from chaos. While Anna suggested her self-injury related to self-hatred, elsewhere in her interviews, self-injury was framed as an act carried out in response to overwhelming emotional and social situations, where she felt out of control. Self-injury, at times, offered a way to regain control and—perhaps—to conquer chaos, if only temporarily.

Anna: If I'm no’ in control of a situation, or if I'm no’ in control of what's happenin’ … that's when I self-harm […] It's like… if, if somebody says something or, or [pause] or… you know something's going on and I'm like ‘oh god I cannae stop this’ or … em sometimes I start to panic aboot things, and the only way I can stop panicking about it and think rationally about it is … cut myself [pause] it's just like, I dunno it makes me just stop I suppose and then, it's like right ok, deal wi it. So I think it's like getting control or gaining control.

Self-injury was described similarly by a number of other participants, and ‘control’ was certainly a recurring motif throughout the interviews when describing the practice of self-injury. Control is also an important feature of Frank's illness narratives, both in terms of implied control (or lack of control) of the body and as regards the use of story and narrative as a way of regaining control over the ill body.30 In Anna's narrative, self-injury is a response to chaos, but also contributes to ongoing chaos: generating further scars, further wounds. While Anna described self-injury as a way of gaining control, and emphasised her need to feel ‘in control’, she also alluded to a lack of control, both regarding the act of self-injury and the corporeal aftermath.

Anna: Have you seen that [scar reduction product] that's advertised? […] it kinda does fade them, but, ‘fraid I think I've got too many big, deep, ... kinda big scars now that it just, it wouldnae work. Em, but for a long time I could get away with [shorter] sleeves cos it wasnae, kinda here, but, it—progresses.

Anna's account implied less control over the progression of self-injury, and the generation of ‘bigger’, ‘deeper’ scars: scars which were less amenable to attempts to reduce their appearance. Thus, as with the restitution narratives discussed above, Anna's chaos narrative applied particularly to her account of her scars, with chaos being more complicated when describing the act of self-injury itself.

Transforming the self: re-visioning scars

In stark contrast to Anna's account, several participants provided narratives about their practice of self-injury and their permanent scarring, which emphasised the transformative, positive nature of both. These narratives align closely with Frank's quest narrative form, as the illness experience is reworked by the teller as initiating a transformed, improved self.30 Two participant's narratives indicated that the transformative quality of self-injury originated in the act itself, and their stories tied current, positive, interpretations of scars to the meanings of the initial injury. Another participant spoke of the importance of revealing her scars to others, as a form of reaching out and reassuring others.

Mark provided a narrative which frequently alluded to how self-injury had been effective at the time, helping him to manage periods of depression: ‘it worked, it worked […] it's always had a positive, feeling to me’. This affirmative account was carried through into Mark's discussion of the scars that his practice of self-injury had left:

Mark: But, because that one was so bad, em, … it almost serves as, as a [sign] I don't need to cut, I've got that […] it's like er, it's like a badge. […] I think if I hadn't done that, my arm would have been a lot more—covered in small cuts.

This particular narrative referred to a large scar left by what Mark indicated had been his final act of self-injury. Mark portrayed this event (cutting himself, ‘badly’) as effectively ending a difficult interpersonal relationship. As indicated here, he suggested that the resulting scar now acted as a signal, or reminder, that he did not ‘need to cut’. Significantly, Mark's account argues that had he not cut himself ‘badly’ on that occasion, his body may have now carried numerous smaller scars. Mark's discussion paralleled those provided by others where scars, and the self-injury which had generated them, were linguistically harnessed in order to generate an understandable, meaningful, account of both past acts and current, scarred, body.

In Rease's case, self-injury was explicitly framed as an important part of a broader transformation, helping her to feel more comfortable in her own body, as well as being a response to feelings of anger, self-loathing and depression.

Rease: It's [depression] like you're, cut-off from people. So I felt like that, and the, the self-harm brought me back to life[…] would kinda wake me up, and just make me feel so much better.

Rease argued that both her earlier practice of self-injury and the scars she carried with her in the present were positive and represented constructive acts, involving taking control of her body, her life and her story:

Rease: … it is about adornment and celebration […] And in a way my scars are as well, actually, ‘cos I do think they're really beautiful, and they're like a part of my, my experience, my history. And I very much believe about, em, your experience—written on the body and the body telling a story.

While other participants similarly emphasised that self-injury had been a successful method of managing distress, the accounts of Rease and Mark differed in explicitly tying positive meanings to both their practice of self-injury and the resulting scars.

That scars and the body might tell a story provoke questions about who the story might be for, and whether others might understand the story in the way the teller/body intends. Indeed, the accounts participants provided about hiding, concealing or minimising their scars frequently alluded to concerns about how ‘others’ might read scars. A contrast to this concern is found in Milly's account of deciding to ‘stop hiding’ her scars. Like Rease and Mark, Milly provided a provocative narrative, where she subverted concepts of stigma and shame, suggesting that viewing her scars could act as a form of support for others who might not be ready to be as open as she was:

Milly: I, for me it's a sense of pride, of being able to say to people ‘I've, been through crap, but I've got over it’ rather than keeping it hidden […later…] to be able to show, and I don't think this has, been discussed either, to be able to show, what I've done, it's not—like I said earlier on—it's not like ‘hey look at me, look what I've been through […] isn't it shit’ … it's a, … this is, this is what I have [been through], this is what I was, and this is who I am now.

Milly framed her revealing of her self-injury scars as a moral, compassionate move that opened up conversations with others who had self-injured and facilitated sharing of experiences. She emphasised her ‘pride’ in who she was, contrasting this with earlier difficulties she had faced during adolescence and young adulthood.

The quest narratives produced during this research provide parallels to Frank's discussion of the ethics of storytelling, and particularly the ethics invoked by quest narratives.30 The accounts of Rease, Mark and Milly touched on an ethics of recollection, of solidarity and commitment, and of inspiration (Frank30 pp. 132–33): Rease and Mark highlighted the importance of scars in anchoring memories of past actions, while Milly's account emphasised the centrality of scars in developing shared understandings and of inspiring others to live confidently with their own marked body. These narratives might be seen to reflect the communicative body, in action.30

Reading and listening to the self-injured body

The accounts discussed in this paper demonstrate the diverse meanings that self-injury, and the scars that it leaves, can hold. Although self-injury is not straight-forwardly an ‘illness’, accounts of self-injury reflect Frank's typology of illness narratives, particularly when attention is paid to narratives about bodies that have been scarred by self-injury.30 It is less clear that illness narratives are an appropriate lens through which to understand the practice of self-injury. As such, this analysis parallels the use by Sinclair and Green of the typology to analyse accounts of moving away from self-injury,29 though in this paper I focus in particular on accounts of the embodied aspects of being someone who has self-injured, or who still does.

While illness narratives frequently refer to or invoke the ill body, with self-injury the scars—the evidence of ‘illness’—can be both the starting point and originator of the story. Participants described deep unease about the possibility that others might ‘read’ scars incorrectly, or might make unfavourable assumptions about them as a result of seeing them; even those who provided positive accounts of scars indicated that they concealed them in certain contexts. Thus, the scars left by self-injury can be understood themselves as communicative, and narratives provided by people who are scarred provide an opportunity to control, to some extent, the nature of this communication. The analysis developed here indicates that the level of control people might have over these narratives varies, though in all cases drawing on culturally available frameworks: of overcoming and transforming bodies and stories through painful experience; of feeling out-of-control and losing hope; of gaining control via interventions and ‘fixes’ which return the body—at least partially—to what it once was.

Attending to the diverse ways in which scars—and self-injury—may be understood should comprise an important aspect of compassionate clinical practice. Carel31 has recently argued for the importance of phenomenological approaches to improving medical practice and research, suggesting that paying attention to embodiment provides a more holistic view of illness experience. While Carel suggests that narrative approaches often fall short of adequately incorporating the body, Frank's typology of illness narratives addresses bodies directly.30 The analysis presented here has focused on accounts of living in and with a body scarred by self-injury, thus providing a partially embodied perspective on this experience. Further, by highlighting accounts of the impact of living with a self-injured body, our attention is drawn to the importance of the long-term nature of some self-injury in which scars may endure long after the practice itself has ceased. Given the apparent rise in the number of people who are engaging in self-injury,6 ,12 it seems likely that medical practitioners will come across individuals marked by self-injury in greater frequency. A phenomenological, narrative approach demonstrates that care should be taken not to make assumptions about what these marks might mean for individual patients.

The existence of permanent scarring following self-injury invokes different types of account. This paper has explored three of these among a relatively small sample of adults, following Frank's typology of chaos, restitution and quest.30 Future work with the narratives of people who have self-injured should explore this further in order to ascertain whether this analysis is more widely applicable, and whether among other samples the typology might be more appropriate for the practice, as well as the aftermath, of self-injury. There are numerous factors which might shape the way in which scars left by self-injury are narrated and accounted for. Certainly, how recently a person has self-injured may help to explain some of this diversity. Chaos narratives, like Anna's, may be more likely if self-injury is an ongoing concern. It is also possible that the nature and setting of the research interview encourages particular forms of narrative. Interviews in this study were organised around a discussion of the participants’ ‘life story’ and there may have been an impulse in providing such an account to give a positive ending. Indeed, this may well be the case with much interview-based research, as noted by Bury.24 This raises questions as to the extent to which qualitative interview studies provide adequate space or opportunity for more pessimistic, chaotic stories.

References

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

Millard C. Making the cut: the production of ‘self-harm’ in post-1945 Anglo-Saxon psychiatry. Hist Hum Sci 2013;26(2):126–50.

Harris J. Self-harm: cutting the bad out of me. Qual Health Res 2000;10(2):164–73.

Adler P, Adler P. The tender cut: inside the hidden world of self-injury. New York:  New York University Press, 2011.

Hodgson S. Cutting through the silence: a sociological construction of self-injury. Sociological Inquiry 2004;74(2):162–79.

Barton-Breck A, Heyman B. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative? The variable value dynamics of non-suicidal self-hurting. Health Risk Soc 2012;14 (5):445–64.

McHale J, Felton A. Self-harm: what’s the problem? A literature review of the factors affecting attitudes towards self-harm. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2010;17 (8):732–40.

Spandler H, Batsleer J. Sparring partners: Conflicts in the expression and treatment of self-harm. In: Batsleer J, Humphries B, eds. Welfare, exclusion and political agency. London: Routledge, 2000:173–89.

Pembroke L. Only scratching the surface. Nurs Times 1998;94(27):38–9.

Rayner G, Warner S. Research report: self-harming behaviour: from lay perceptions to clinical practice. Couns Psychol Q 2003;16(4):305–29.

Inckle K. Flesh wounds? New ways of understanding self-injury. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books, 2010.

Hadfield J, Brown D, Pembroke L, et al. Analysis of accident and emergency doctors’ responses to treating people who self-harm. Qual Health Res 2009;19(6):755–65.

Carter SK. Beyond control: body and self in women’s childbearing narratives. Sociol Health Illn 2010;32(7):993–1009.

Flynn D. Narratives of melancholy: a humanities approach to depression. Med Humanit 2010;36(1):36–9.

Harris M. Troubling biographical disruption: narratives of unconcern about hepatitis C diagnosis. Sociol Health Illn 2009;31(7):1028–42.

Mooney A. Some body wants to be normal: an account of an HIV narrative. Med Humanit 2005;31(2):72–80.

Kleinman A. The illness narratives: suffering, healing, and the human condition. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

Shapiro J. Illness narratives: reliability, authenticity and the empathic witness. Med Humanit 2011;37(2):68–72.

Woods A. The limits of narrative: provocations for the medical humanities. Med Humanit 2011;37(2):73–8.

Thomas C. Negotiating the contested terrain of narrative methods in illness contexts. Sociol Health Illn 2010;32(4):647–60.

Atkinson P. Illness narratives revisited: the failure of narrative reductionism. Sociological Research Online 2009;14(5):16.

Riessman C. Narrative analysis. London: Sage, 1993.

Plummer K. Documents of life 2; an invitation to critical humanism. London: Sage, 2001.

Bury M. Illness narratives: fact or fiction? Sociol Health Illn 2001;23(3):263–85.

Kapur N, Cooper J, O’Connor RC, et al. Non-suicidal self-injury v. attempted suicide: new diagnosis or false dichotomy? Br J Psychiatry 2013;202 (5):326–28.

Sparkes AC, Smith B. When narratives matter: men, sport, and spinal cord injury. Med Humanit 2005;31(2):81–8.

Thomas-MacLean R. Understanding breast cancer stories via Frank’s narrative types. Soc Sci Med 2004;58(9):1647–57.

Boynton PM, Auerbach A. “I cut because it helps”: narratives of self-injury in teenage girls. In: Narrative Research in Health and Illness: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008:95–114.

Sinclair J, Green J. Understanding resolution of deliberate self harm: qualitative interview study of patients experiences. BMJ, 2005;330:1112.

Frank A. The wounded storyteller; body, illness, and ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Carel H. Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theor Med Bioeth 2011;32(1):33–46.

Toombs SK. The meaning of illness: a phenomenological account of the different perspectives of physician and patient. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W. Analysis: practices, principles and processes. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, eds. Qualitative research practice. London: Sage, 2005:199–218.

Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med 1995;41 (12):1667–76.

Chandler A. Inviting pain? Pain, dualism and embodiment in narratives of self-injury. Sociol Health Illn 2013;35(5):716–30.

Oliver DG, Serovich JM, Mason TL. Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: towards reflection in qualitative research. Soc Forces 2005;84(2):1273–89.

Whitehead LC. Quest, chaos and restitution: Living with chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis. Soc Sci Med 2006;62(9):2236–45.