by Abe Van Luik. abevanluik@thoughtsandplaces.org
Fundamentalist is a classification
like liberal, or
conservative, which can mean
different things to different
people. In this case it means
those that believe in the
inerrancy of the Bible, and
who believe the Bible to be a
complete and infallible guide
for conducting personal as well as
political affairs. They therefore
seek to learn as closely as
possible what scripture actually
says by studying the Bible in
its original tongues.
In the 1970s in making pronouncements
in
opposition to the proposed Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA), their
spokespersons' reiterated Biblical
doctrines concerning women's
place. I believe these ancient
male-chauvenistic and
misogynistic ideals were being
reintroduced and validated for
modern times in reaction to
the threat of modernization presented
by the ERA.
If these supposedly Bible-based
ideals were
recognized in terms of their
implications regarding the
differential natures of men
and women, I believe most modern
people would have little patience
with them.
I'm going to use an example to
illustrate the view of
woman's place that motivated
many Christian fundamentalists to
oppose the ERA. To make this
illustration more interesting,
however, I'm going to examine
a little booklet that was in print
before the ERA came up as a
big issue, and before consciences
were raised in terms of the
implications of sexism in thought and
language even among ERA's opponents.
Even though my edition was
published in 1973, the author's
conscience regarding the nature
and self esteem of women has
certainly not been raised.
I'll be looking in detail at
the work of a modern Christian
fundamentalist, who interprets
scripture quite literally,
translating as he reads from
the original tongues, and not
apparently subscribing to modern
trends in textual criticism or
interpretation. The work chosen
may, perhaps, represent an
extreme faction of the fundamentalist
mindset regarding woman's
place. I hope so, but personally
doubt if it is that far from
the center. The work to be examined
is by an individual named
Robert B. Thieme, Jr., whose
book "Adam's Rib" has been in print
for decades. The copy used in
this review was published in
l973 by Berachah Tapes &
Publications, Houston, Texas.
It probably would be offensive
to many to read something
like Thieme writes regarding
men with long hair (p. 23): "A man
who has his hair long because
some doll told him he looked good
that way, obviously is a responder.
He has all the male
accoutrements, but he's a 'woman'
in his soul." -- Here the
author is calling men names,
and the degrading name he uses is
"woman". He does this again,
again in discussing men with long
hair (p. 34): "Furthermore,
it is a sign of a feminine soul in
the man, as well as rebellion
against God's design" .... -- It
is apparently revolting to the
author to think of having a
woman's soul, or a feminine
soul.
It appears to me that Thieme
is convinced of man's
superiority over woman, and
is greatly troubled by the idea that
some men may not share that
conviction. The Christian reader may
agree with Thieme when he writes
concerning Gen. l:27: "So ELOHIM
created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him,
male and female created he them.
There is a pattern here: just
as ELOHIM is one in essence,
so man - male or female - has the
same essence of soul. But there
is also a difference, and the
difference comes from the fact
that there are three separate and
distinct Persons in the Godhead
- therefore, three Personalities.
Just so, there are many bona
fide personalities."
The idea that this scripture
says that human beings, whether male
or female, have the same essence
of soul is something most
modern Christians would firmly
believe. Hence, for someone
that professes to believe this,
like Thieme, to then derisively
characterize a man who deviates
from the norm in a superficial way
as being one that has a woman's
soul and is a 'responder' is
misogynistic. By putting a man
down with these words, he puts
all women down.
Christians generally would assume
that God is just. Therefore,
the unjust idea that a male
soul is qualitatively superior to a
female soul would be judged
to be not from God. It is a man's
idea, not using "man" in the
generic sense.
A theme that verily dominates
the entire book is that God's
view is androcentric, or male-centered.
For example, Thieme
writes as if only males are
the object of creation and salvation
(pp.8-9): "God did not intend
for man to be miserable with a
life of emptiness, He intended
each man to have a RIGHT WOMAN!
For the unbeliever, this is
the only true or lasting happiness
he can ever have. ... Now God
designed this gift so that even an
unbeliever with an empty life
can ... have happiness. ... God
gives man work ... and a right
woman." Even though Thieme does
also mention that to every woman
is given a right man, he does so
only once in this discussion,
showing that his main topic is
man. This may not, at first
glance, seem ominous to the modern
Christian reader, but it is
sure to become ominous as we progress
through the book.
For example, when Thieme tells
the story of Adam naming the
animals and Eve, he says (p.
l5): "But I want you to notice
something: God continued to
follow the same procedure of allowing
Adam to identify and name all
of the species. ... Jesus Christ
has a great sense of humor.
He brought the woman for Adam to
name in much the same way as
He had brought the animals. Jesus
Christ may have said, 'What
are you going to call this one,
Adam?"
Thieme thinks it is funny that
woman is brought onto the
scene as if she were another
species of animal, but is that
really funny? Would God humiliate
anyone, let alone half of
humanity, for the purpose of
making a joke? I believe most
Christians would say no.
Only men do such stupid things
and think they're funny. The
men who created and transmitted
this record to us probably caused
this humiliating drama to be
pictured as it is, but it probably
represents neither God's view
nor the actual occurrences of that
time and place. And, I believe,
there is plenty of evidence
within the books of Moses, out
of which Thieme is quoting here,
to make a convincing case that
where woman is concerned, the Old
Testament gives the customs,
laws, and prejudices of the ancient
peoples of that place and time.
For example, Thieme makes a very
big deal of a theme most
readers would find unpalatable:
his right man-right woman theme.
He says it began and is illustrated
by Adam and Eve (p. l5). On
the next page (l6), he makes
a point of saying polygamy is
prohibited by God. He makes
this point here because he is in
the part of the Old Testament
that explicitly provides for and
illustrates polygamy, but you
can't have both polygamy and right
man-right woman. In his appendix
on polygamy, he states quite
clearly that polygamy violates
right man-right woman and hence
can't be from God.
The merits of right man-right
woman we will
save for another paragraph.
The appendix on polygamy deserves a
detailed look now. Some Christians,
such as -perhaps- members of
the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) would
probably disagree with Thieme
that polygamy is a man-made evil,
and not a God-prescribed arrangement,
and might disagree with his
saying the Old Testament gives
any hint at all that this is the
case. In fact, even Martin Luther
at one point admitted that
polygamy was not prohibited
by the Old Testament.
The point is not, however, that
the Bible condones polygamy,
but that if one claims to literally
accept everything in the
Bible one is not free to throw
away any Biblical statement as
being wrong. Thieme uses Leviticus
l8:l8 as a proof-text to show
God is against polygamy. Leviticus
l8:l8 says: "And you shall
not take a woman as a rival
wife to her sister, uncovering her
nakedness while her sister is
yet alive." This does not prohibit
polygamy at all, it only says
you should not have two sisters as
plural wives, and it comes at
the tail end of a long list of
incestuous relationships that
are forbidden. In this list, your
father, your mother, and your
father's wife are each listed
separately (l8:7-8) because
this was a polygamous society and a
father's wife was not necessarily
also your mother.
The second scripture Thieme quotes
to show God prohibits
polygamy is Deuteronomy l7:l7
which is part of a list of things
that must be required of any
king of Israel. He is not to
multiply horses, wives, silver
and gold, according to verses l6
and l7. Interesting how wives
are classed as property here,
isn't it? Wives and silver and
gold are in the same paragraph.
And what is the reason he should
"not multiply wives for
himself"? "Lest his heart turn
away," it says, so this was a
warning against living like
a typical oriental despot, receiving
women as presents and peace
offerings from neighboring lands, and
learning their religions and
perhaps worshipping their gods. It
is hardly a general prohibition
against polygamy, surely the king
could have a few coins of gold
and a few horses?
Thieme lists heroes of faith
in the appendix as being
monogamous who are not, in fact,
all monogamous. Abraham had
both Sarah and Hagar, both approved
by God and the posterity of
both blessed by God (Gen. 2l,
etc.). Moses was criticized by
Miriam for having an Ethiopian
wife, and the presumption is that
he also had a wife among the
Israelites. Thieme's saying God
did not approve of Jacob's polygamy
in Genesis 29 runs counter to
Genesis 29:3l-30:24, where God
is intimately involved in the
marital affairs of Jacob. Also,
David was a man after God's own
heart, according to the Bible,
yet his polygamous exploits are
legendary.
When David was called on the
carpet by the prophet Nathan
for having Uriah killed so that
he could take Bathsheba to wife,
he was chewed out for murder,
not polygamy, and God saw fit to
afterward bless that particular
union with Solomon. The prophet
Nathan says to David at this
point (2 Samuel l2:7): ... "Thus
says the Lord, the God of Israel,
'I anointed you king over
Israel, and I delivered you
out of the hand of Saul and I gave
you your master's house, and
your master's wives unto your bosom,
and gave you the house of Israel
and Judah and if this were too
little, I would add to you as
much more."
I do believe these words, spoken
by an authorized representative of
God and in His name, pretty
well destroy Thieme's main blast at
polygamy (p. 57): "Polygamy
was never authorized by the Word of
God.... Polygamy is never the
will of God.... Only man in
reversion or human viewpoint
rationalism condones polygamy."
Although I personally share Thieme's
revulsion at polygamy,
that revulsion was certainly
not shared by the authors of the Old
Testament: they perceived that
the practice was condoned and even
supported by God, and said so
-at least the prophet Nathan did-
in the name of God.
Which brings us back to the right
man-right woman idea which
seems to be Thieme's main theme:
there is no such doctrine in all
of the Bible! The Old Testament's
first
half solidly presupposes
the practice of polygamy, especially
in the law of Moses and the
books of the kings. And the
New Testament never mentions right
man-right woman, and has Paul
saying it is better to stay single
and dedicate your life to the
service of God (l Cor. 7:25-39).
In that context, however, Paul
also says a woman may marry
whomever she wishes after her
husband's death (v. 39), which
argues quite strongly that the
right man-right woman theme was
not on Paul's mind at all.
Thieme says (p. l6): "There is
a woman whose soul and body
are perfectly designed for you,
and no one else will quite do -
ever. Now that ought to scare
you!" That is scary, if it is
believed. Note that this is
again, however, written from a man's
point of view, as evidenced
by his emphasis on having "fun" (p.
l6): ..."If you are an unbeliever,
the greatest fun you'll ever
have is here on earth with a
woman - your right woman - because
you're going to spend eternity
in hell ... . God designed woman
to be the quintessence of happiness
for man."
It is a mystery how Thieme can
say this, because it implies God
created woman to match these
unbelieving, unregenerate men (p. 7):
"The souls of right man-right
woman, as well as their bodies, are
designed to be a perfect match
for each other."
This is incredibly unjust, and
suggests only men have volition, women
are only creatures made to complement
men, in whatever state they may
be found. The androcentricity
of these thoughts is overwhelming.
Thieme's explanation of how woman
is to provide man this
great fun and happiness is focused
on sex, which adds another
frightening dimension to his
right man-right woman theme, because
it leads one to wonder just
what a woman is, besides being a sexual
plaything for man.
Woman, in Thieme's words, is
(p. 29): ... "an empty vessel
designed to respond to the right
man".... She is a well of water
(p. 48): "The well of water'
which belongs to you must be
regarded as one of the highest
things on your scale of values."
So woman is a thing, an object
to be highly prized. This is
confirmed when he emphasizes
that woman is a grace gift from
Jesus Christ.
He makes this statement regarding
woman being a grace gift
repeatedly, but the first time
he mentions it is worth a second
look (p. 20): "There are three
basic grace gifts from Jesus
Christ to the human race: (l)
RIGHT WOMAN (He built it) (2)
SALVATION (He did it) (3) DOCTRINE
(He taught it)."
This is a devastating statement
because it illustrates the totally
androcentric world view of Thieme:
the human race is male and is
given woman, hope, and understanding,
three THINGS ("it" is no
accident) to make HIM happy
here and hereafter. Reading from the
original tongues, Thieme explains
how woman was 'built' while
man was 'fashioned' (p. l4)
he explains how man 'exists' while
woman 'keeps on being' under
the protection of her man (p. 27)
and, as previously noted, he
thought it was funny how Eve was
brought before Adam to be classified
as if she were another
species of animal. All of that,
taken with the use of the word
'it' for woman, shows a strong
bias toward regarding men as human
beings and women as objects.
I believe that, seen in this
light, most Christians would see
through the claim of the Biblical
nature of these teachings and
turn away in disgust.
But what kind of object is a
woman to be to a man? As
alluded to above: a sex object.
"The glory of the man is his
RIGHT WOMAN. When he provides
sex for his right woman she become
gloriously animated. She is
glorious! The right woman is
designed to be insatiable, and
her right man is the only person
who has the key to her lock
he is the only person who has the
ability to satisfy and fulfill
her - soul and body. ... But
when you give your glory to
the right woman, she REFLECTS YOUR
GLORY." (p. 42) On the
next page he repeats: "Remember, the
woman is insatiable " ... .
Most mature Christian readers
would
sense that this is hurtful nonsense,
no one is insatiable except
in the Playboy philosophy which
pretends that women live for the
sole purpose of allowing men
to act out their fantasies.
Thieme closely approaches the
Playboy philosophy when he
contends (p. 45): ... "there
are many acts of sexual relationship
between right man and right
woman." And on page 20: "There is
no such thing as perversion
where right man and right woman are
concerned (Heb. l3:4). Anything
to which right man and right
woman BOTH agree is NOT perversion!"
This statement has nothing
to do with Hebrews l3:4, which
says: "Let marriage be held in
honor by all, and let the marriage
bed be undefiled for God will
judge the immoral and adulterous."
Thieme's statements are totally
insensitive to the power implications
of sexual acts. Some acts
are tools for humiliation and serve as
symbols for domination. Yet
Thieme is big on male domination as
a scriptural prescription, so
it has probably not yet dawned on him that
talking an at-first objecting
wife into performing certain sexual
acts, particularly those involving
oral and anal intercourse, is
potentially very humiliating.
These acts may be pleasurable to
some, and to some they may be
a way of sharing or celebrating
love, but when a person has
to be browbeat into participation
they become a using of another
person as a tool wherewith to
masturbate while acting out
ones aggressions and fantasies.
To the Christian reader, it may
seem that what Thieme says here
could be proof of his not having
the Spirit of God, but being simply
hell-bent in trying to assure
male dominance in the marriage bed.
Thieme revels in the dominance
of male over female. The
central part of the book, which
makes a big deal of man having
short hair and woman having
long hair as symbols of the Divine
hierarchy of male over female
(pp. 2l-36) is simply ludicrous in
my opinion. Sure, Paul may have
said all these things and
believed them, but Paul was
not always right, and at times spoke
out of his own wisdom and not
at the command of God: l Cor. 7:25
and 40 are examples of where
he acknowledges that he has no
command but speaks his mind
and believes he has the Spirit.
Can we accept Paul's idea, so
strongly affirmed by Thieme as
he translates: "a man ... existing
as the image and glory of
God
but the woman is the glory
of the man... . ... For also man
was not created because of the
woman
but woman because of man"
(pp. 26 and 28)? This idea that
woman exists for the sake of man
and not vice-versa (p. 28) is
quite perverse. It is from this
viewpoint that Thieme writes,
of course, but isn't it a
reflection of Paul's upbringing,
his cultural bias, rather than
an express command of God? Can't
we disregard an argument for
male superiority from a person
grounded in that tradition? Paul
also supported the rights of
slaveholders, and sent Philemon back
to his owner (Philemon 8-20).
l Peter 2:l8-l9 also recommends
slaves remain slaves and suffer
heroically (it refers to them as
servants and their masters,
in some translations,but slaves are
meant just as they were meant
when laws were provided for their
regulation in the law of Moses).
Does this mean that in the Civil
War the North was acting
against the will of God in fighting
the South to free the slaves?
That was the serious argument
of some religious leaders of that
time, but I do believe modern
Christians rather clearly see that
Paul's and Peter's writings
on some issues reflected the customs
and understandings of their
times, and not the will of God.
Thieme finishes up with a long
tirade against sexual sin
from the fifth chapter of Proverbs.
To an extent, modern
Christian readers would have
no problem with this section, since
they would agree that sexual
adventurism is a sign of a lack of
commitment of one spouse to
the other. Sexual sin is a hurtful
thing because it says in effect
that one's ego or physical
pleasure is more important than
one's relationship being one of
mutual trust and respect.
Yet here Thieme goes, using a
supposed dialogue between two
men who each have had intercourse
with literally hundreds of
women ('thousands' on top of
Thieme's page 37,
700 wives and 300 concubines
for Solomon, p. 5l)
to illustrate his points regarding
sexual sin. We are asked to
believe none of these l,000
women were the "right woman" for
Solomon, and that these women
were promiscuous and nymphomaniacs
and entrapped the poor boy!
We're being told by these most
promiscuous of men that women
are a snare and a trap!
Thieme cites the key words of
scripture in repeating these accusations:
women are divisive on page 37
poison on page 38 even though
only her ankles show, her sexy
walk is a come-on to the grave and
she is a manwrecker on page
39
she's unstable and faithless on
page 40 she's cruel and vindictive
on page 4l she destroys
man's body and ruins his phallus
on page 42 and she's
either a nymphomaniac or sexless
as she progresses on page 43!
The whole discussion is incredibly
woman-hating. Men are
poor, defenseless creatures.
And this is supposedly David
talking? I hope that modern
Bible readers know this is nonsense,
because of the true story of
how David was entrapped by one of
these evil women (2 Samuel ll:2-4):
"It happened, late one
afternoon, when David arose
from his couch and was walking upon
the roof of the king's house,
that he saw from the roof a
woman bathing and the woman
was very beautiful. ... So David
sent messengers, and took her
and she came to him, and he lay
with her." David was the initiator
and aggressor.
She did not trap a defenseless
man with her beauty, her
being beautiful did not make
it her fault. Yet Thieme observes
as a general rule about women
(p. 45): "She is designed to be
appreciated by one man only.
Therefore, the right woman should
be discreet in her dress. You
can always tell a woman who isn't
a right woman - she's advertising!
A right woman ... does not
try to attract other men with
her dress. A woman who is flirty,
who wears her clothing a little
too short or cut a little too
low ... is on the prowl, and
she is easily detected by those with
doctrine or discernment."
Most mature readers would discern
quite readily the lesson that
Thieme, a man, learned from
David and Solomon: when tempted
--blame the woman!
Modern Christian readers would
probably judge the entire
book to be hateful toward women,
to be a put-down of woman, and
to teach nonsense. A very hurtful
type of nonsense at that,
because it tells women, in short,
that in the eyes of God woman
is a tool designed by God to
serve, obey, and bring pleasure to
those special creatures who
alone reflect God's image and glory:
men!
And if you as a woman deviate
at all from your design, you
are a most hateful creature
that will bring many innocent men to
their ruin. The entire book
is preposterous and lacks the Spirit
of God, in my opinion, which
whispers that we are all partakers
of the image of God, we are
all equals in God and
are, as human beings, all essentially
alike in our ability to
receive God's glory and reflect
it.
Thieme's resurrection of the
ancient idea that the man is
the literal 'head' of the 'body'
(woman) (p. 22) is a falsehood
simply reflecting ancient man-made
ideas of the superiority of
men over women. Together with
his admission that men would be
animals if it were not for their
wives and mothers (p. 32), these
two basic notions betray the
whole substance of his basic
argument: man exists, woman
exists to reproduce, civilize, and
please him.
This attitude may well be found
throughout
scripture, but I believe that
it no more reflects God's will
than do the scriptural provisions
for the other relics of
barbarism: slavery and polygamy.
Perhaps the modern reader will
say: this Thieme certainly
does not reflect my beliefs,
but as a Christian, I am still
against the ERA. Whether you
are for or against the ERA is
really not the issue I'm addressing
here. What I am addressing
is the phenomenon I've observed
within Christianity of
reintroducing, amplifying, and
revalidating ancient notions that
should be buried with the generations
who suffered under them in
ancient times. Just because
some notion is supportable by a
Bible verse rightly interpreted
does not make it right, good or
just.
My personal perspective was developed
by witnessing the
fight against the ERA, which
first made me aware of the male-
chauvinism and misogynism of
certain parts of the Old and New
Testaments. I also first noticed
how modern Christian
fundamentalists, especially,
but also some representatives of
mainline churches, were saying
things that were reflections of
these ancient prejudices.
Then I began to note that those
who
were convinced of scriptural
inerrancy were stuck with believing
in, defending and even promoting
these anachronistic, hurtful
ideas. And at the botom of that
barrel of discoveries I found
Thieme, honestly saying what
he truly felt the Bible taught on
the topic of woman's place,
and thereby illustrating to the
modern believer -I hope- that
a believer sometimes has to make
a choice between scriptural
inerrancy and morality.