Tags
AAR, American Academy of Religion, ETS, Evangelical Theological Society, SBL, Society of Biblical Literature
Further to discussions about the low number of women presenting at the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) conference, and the disgustingly low number of women presenting at the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference in 2011 – what are the comparative figures for the American Academy of Religion (AAR) conference this year?
The names for the first 200 abstracts include 119 male and 81 female presenters.
So based on the samples carried out, the percentages of women presenting at the three largest annual religious studies conferences are:
American Academy of Religion (AAR): 41%
Society of Biblical Literature (SBL): 29%
Evangelical Theological Society (ETS): 1%
The Dunedin School 
Thanks for adding AAR to the mix.
Must be a whole lotta soft complimentarianism going on, brony.
Well at least the ETS knows its still a ‘mans world’! ;)
In reality in the scholastic world, is the value of the content and truthfulness of the work, not men verses women!
Robert, your prejudice is only matched by your head-in-the-sand naivety.
Deane,
There are still a few of us Anglicans that believe both the Word of God, and in the man and message of St. Paul!
What? Only “a few”? Do 40,000,000 Nigerian Anglicans mean nothing to you?
I’m not so sure about your “orthodoxy” in your posts, mate? I’m a Irish Brit, and right now in the USA, and thankfully semi-retired. And Nigerian Anglicanism? Too fall away for me! ;)
Does the Word of God and St. Paul forbid you to address systemic privilege and oppression?
So in essence your saying that the Word of God, and St. Paul, are oppressive. But oppressive by “your” standard. This is always how sinful humanity deals with God’s revelation and absolutes. Nein and neglect… I will not be ruled by God! I mean according to human standards, how dare anyone or anything tell ME what I should or must do!
Robert,
As noted elsewhere, the ETS isn’t a scholarly organisation, so this bit of waffle doesn’t apply.
Eric
Eric,
Just responding to the data given here, but my premise still is true!
Wow, amazing ability to attribute motive and judge sin in someone you’ve never met! On the contrary– I will be ruled by God. But I will not be ruled by you. Nor will accept your traditionalist, male-centric interpretation of Scripture as though you possess absolute knowledge that what you think each passage means is what God Himself intended it to mean. If your interpretation results in privilege and oppression, then it is false, as God is not the author of injustice.
Again, it seems that Jesus Christ was at least in accordance with Jewish Tradition and “the patriarchs”, (Romans 15:8); as again St. Paul reveals. So tradition and male leadership were central in HIS positions! And as St. Paul also says, “But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:40) Not a hint of injustice here!
Rom 15:8 says Jesus confirmed the promises made to “the fathers.” Nothing there about Jesus confirming patriarchy– just the promises made to Abraham, etc. Yes, 1 Cor 14 is all about doing things decently and in order. That’s why we know it’s not about silencing women any more than it’s about silencing prophets. 1 Cor 14:26 says everyone can speak. It’s not the Bible that’s unjust– it’s the way some people read it.
In reality, 1 Cor. 11: 2-16 is a cultural and theological hammer blow to your positions. Yes, the historical church is far from this conformity and obedience, now! In 1 Cor. 11: 10, the Greek word “exousia” (authority / spiritual jurisdiction) “is used of the veil with which a woman is required to cover herself in an assembly or church, as a sign of the Lord’s authority over the Church.” St. Paul also called his ministry an ‘Apostolic Authority’, in 2 Cor. 10:8. Certainly this “authority” should build-up the Body of Christ on earth, but it certainly begins in obedience, and again, we are sadly very far from this now, in the Church Catholic & Historical!
irishanglican, there is no “veil” in the original text of 1 Cor 11:10. What that passage actually says in the original is “woman should have authority over her own head.” You are misreading that passage as you have misread all the others. There isn’t room here to go into all that, or all the ways we disagree– but I do not permit you to teach or exercise authority over me, so why don’t you stop trying to convince me of your position? I’ve heard all your arguments 100 times and have studied them and rejected them. I don’t need your permission to believe differently than you.
Kristen: You can believe what you want, of course, but even in Thiselton’s NIGTC in 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16, he sees, and suggests as others, that “subordinationism” is certainly central. And the “authority” in 13:10 does have to do with a woman’s head. And the reality of the head-covering is certainly real here. The context seems squarely in the use of the literal “head-covering”.
I am looking here at the Text/texts itself, just what you are bringing to the Text itself, I have no idea, but my guess is that you don’t want to be bound by the reality of any subordinationism of women! The Holy Scripture here does certainly teach a certain creational hierarchy, as we can note in verses 7 thru 10, etc. And we see this also in 1 Tim. 2:13, etc.
I didn’t say there were no head-coverings in view in 1 Cor 11. I said verse 10 did not contain the word “veil.” It doesn’t say the woman is to wear a “sign of authority” on her head– it says she should have authority over her own head. That’s what the original text actually says. Looked at more closely, 1 Cor 11 is not about subordinationism, but about origins, and how what you did reflected on your origins in the ANE honor-shame culture. Take off your subordinationist glasses and do some research on original word meanings and the cultural understandings of that day, and you’ll see that the texts can be read differently. Creational heirarchy was a conception of pagan Greek thought, that was grafted into Christianity in the second century. Jesus taught against heirarchy throughout the gospels. Jesus didn’t come to only set men free, while binding women into subordination forever. The gospel is good news! Not just for going to heaven, but for this life too. Not just for you, but for me too. It is for freedom that He set me free, and I will not be subjected again to a yoke of bondage. So please back off.
Kristen: It appears that you, like so many on this issue and subject, are looking to justify your egalitarian position, rather than seeking the true exegesis of the Text/texts. And it certainly does appear that you could care less about what St. Paul is saying! And note Jesus was Himself in some form of subordinationism, when Incarnate, and even in the Godhead the Father is always the first person, and the Son is the eternal generation of the Father, as the Spirit also proceeds eternally from the Father. I am not at all pressing you personally, but seeking to express the Catholic and historical faith, as found in both the Holy Scripture and the Church of God! And indeed there is real bondage in false doctrine!
Bobby – remember, this is a family blog. Please take any conversations about bondage to one of those other forums on the interwebs.
Deane,
Interesting, but sadly just the same old tired satire! So I will say adieu, and remove! ;)
Pingback: Even more on women in AAR, ETS, and SBL. | Near Emmaus
Pingback: ETS, SBL, and AAR – Qualitative Analysis « The Dunedin School
Pingback: SBL in the blogs « Euangelion Kata Markon
I’m done too. I will only repeat: when your so-called “true exegesis” results in injustice and oppression, it is not and cannot be getting at the meaning intended by the original texts. Even so did they use “true exegesis” to justify slavery, and they said exactly the same things you just said to me, to the Abolitionists. I’m not buying it. Either the gospel is good news for all, or it is not good news at all. Enough said.
Pingback: Biblical Studies Carnival 69 (November 2011) | Remnant of Giants