







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 75 

 

Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 
 

Brian Albert Smith 
 

 
 

Christian relief and development organizations make frequent and overt use of Scripture in public-

facing publications, internal documentation, and field-level materials. Connections between the Bible 

and gender equality programming within such organizations are less obvious. This is perhaps not 

surprising, but it is unfortunate. Recent developments in the field of biblical studies provide an 

opportunity for engaging the Bible through the lens of gender equality work and vice versa. Following 

an overview of the practice of biblical studies and an exploration of just how Scripture has been used 

in gender in development contexts, readings of three biblical passages illustrate the possibility of a 

more robust engagement with Scripture where Christian development and gender meet. 

 

 
Introduction 

A casual glance at any number of Christian relief, 

development, and advocacy (RDA) organization 

websites provides ample evidence that faith plays a 

prominent role in the field.
1

 Christian organizations 

display and describe faith as a foundational and 

motivating factor of their work. The Bible is typically 

less visible than other indicators of faith, but within a 

few clicks one can usually find a “values” or “beliefs” 

statement that will often (but not always) include an 

organization’s claims about the Bible and its 

importance to the agency’s operations. If the Bible itself 

is not explicitly named, language such as “gospel,” 

“Jesus,” “Christ,” “salvation,” “church,” etc., testifies 

that the organization is rooted in the teachings of 

Christian Scriptures. 

Yet explicit connections between the Bible and 

such organizations’ work on gender are less obvious. 

Despite the growth of gender equality awareness and 

efforts in all sectors of development, it is unclear (at 

least publicly) how the Bible can and does intersect with 

agencies’ efforts at gender equality. This may be a 

reflection of the natural and necessary division between 

the public face of Christian RDA organizations and the 

in-house biblical and theological work
2

 behind any 

particular gender equality programming. Further, the 

subject of gender is contentious in society, and equally 

(if not more so) contentious within the church. 

Christian RDA organizations are no doubt aware of this 

                                                        
1

 Offutt and Reynolds (2019) provide a descriptive analysis of Christian RDA organizations. 
2

 While there is overlap between biblical studies and theology, I will focus exclusively on the use of Scripture and 

biblical studies in this paper. Christian theology is typically grounded, to a greater or lesser degree, in the Bible, but I 

am ultimately most interested in how Scripture does and does not function to support gender equality work within 

Christian RDA organizations. 

contention, and therefore may be hesitant to make 

explicit, public connections between Scripture and 

gender equality programming. A resolution to this 

situation is far beyond the scope of this brief paper. But 

given the importance of the Bible to the various 

constituencies of Christian RDA organizations, it is 

unfortunate that it does not play a stronger public role 

in supporting their gender equality efforts. I hope to 

demonstrate that Christian RDA organizations can take 

advantage of recent trends in biblical studies to make 

better use of Scripture to support their gender equality 

efforts in a way that is both sensitive to the particular 

constituencies of the Christian RDA community and 

reflective of the current field of biblical studies. My 

suggestions here can find application in programming 

as well as in the lives of development professionals. Part 

one provides a brief historical overview of the practice 

of biblical studies to contextualize current scholarly 

practice and my own recommendations which follow in 

part three. Part two examines the current intersection(s) 

of the Bible, Christian development work, and gender. 

Part three offers methodological considerations and 

then provides three examples of gender-sensitive 

approaches to reading the Bible. 

 

Methodological Context  
Modern biblical interpretation traces its origins to 

the Protestant Reformation. In general terms, the 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 76 

Reformation began a shift from “pre-critical” to the 

“critical” reading of Scripture. This was due in part to 

an interest in non-ecclesial, popular scriptural 

interpretation among the Reformers, though Roman 

Catholic hermeneutics was also ultimately affected by 

this change. Pre-critical interpretations were often 

marked by allegorical and theological methodologies. 

The Reformation brought a renewed commitment to 

the text, its own history, and the original languages of 

Scripture. This new focus paved the way for 

Enlightenment influences on biblical study. Those 

influences have profoundly shaped the field up to the 

present day (Gonzáles 1994). 

The past several decades of biblical scholarship 

have seen an explosion of interpretive methodologies 

that moved the discipline beyond the Western, 

historical-critical lens that dominated the 20th century.
3

 
Broadly speaking, the central focus of biblical 

interpretation has moved away from questions of 

authorship and textual development, redaction, and 

transmission, to interests in the text as literature and 

questions central to the interests of interpretive 

communities and individual readers.
4

 At present, one 

finds a veritable smorgasbord of hermeneutical choices 

in the scholarship, with the latest in African, queer, and 

Latino/a/e studies taking their places alongside textual 

criticism, archaeological analysis, and Hebrew language 

work. 

The locus of significance or meaning is a helpful 

consideration in illustrating the concerns of the major 

groups of interpretive methodologies. In the latter half 

of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century, 

Christian biblical scholarship held that the meaning of 

a biblical text was best found in its origins: what it meant 

to the author and his
5

 audience was critical to 

establishing appropriate meanings for the 

contemporary reader. One may describe this approach 

as “behind the text,”
6

 the interpreter’s concern is with 

the author and the historical context that gave rise to 

their writing/collecting/editing. Readers will focus their 

efforts on establishing why a text was written, for whom, 

and when, before drawing out contemporary 

                                                        
3

 See, for example, McKenzie and Hayes (1999) for an exploration of this shift. 
4

 Examples abound; a brief and helpful summary can be found in Sharp (2010). Yee (2007) provides a text-specific 

collection of examples. For important new biblical readings in non-western contexts, see Sugirtharajah (2016).  
5

 While some scholars have posited that a few biblical texts may have been written by women, it is most likely the case 

that the vast majority, if not all, of the authors, compilers, and editors of the Scriptures were men, given the patriarchal 

nature of the ancient societies out of which the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures come. 
6

 I am indebted to William Randolph Tate (2014) for this framework. Tate categorizes biblical study methodologies 

according to three interpretive “worlds”: author, text, and reader. 
7

 An excellent discussion (with examples) of this kind of work is Powell (1995). A more recent example of an 

evangelical commentary with a heavy narrative emphasis is Strauss (2014). As far back as 1982, Robert K. Johnston 

was considering evangelical interpretation in light of this methodological shift. 

significance and application for themselves and their 

communities. 

Unsurprisingly, determining such facts about 

ancient texts is not easy, and one reason scholarship 

turned its focus away from “behind the text” is that most 

scholars could not agree on the “when” or the “for 

whom.” Even if some consensus could be found, 

authorship and authorial intent came under serious fire 

by the middle of the twentieth century. Biblical 

scholarship followed the lead of literary scholarship 

more broadly and began to study the text itself in ways 

that celebrated the Bible as literature. In this view, 

biblical texts establish meaning through rhetorical 

device, structure, word choice, characterization, 

dialogue, etc., and they can do so independent of the 

original setting of the author, the first audiences, or even 

events described in the text. I refer to this interpretive 

emphasis as reading “within the text.” While some 

more conservative readers might be unnerved by a 

departure from traditional historically grounded 

hermeneutics, many have found this particular focus on 

the text to be a helpful addition to the methodological 

toolkit.
7

 

In the end, the shift from author to text set the stage 

for the most recent developments in biblical studies: 

acknowledging the power of the reader in making 

meaning. Higher-critical methods too often assumed 

that interpreters operated objectively, sifting evidence 

and drawing conclusions without bias or prejudice. But 

assumptions of readerly objectivity waned as the world 

became more interconnected and as the biblical studies 

guild acknowledged the hegemony of the white, male, 

European perspective that had established its rules and 

determined its conclusions. Readers began to openly 

admit their perspectives, goals, and biases. This new-

found openness has allowed for interpretations based 

on affinity and identity, spanning and intersecting the 

varying components of self and community. We may 

refer to this type of reading as “in front of the text,” with 

the reader becoming an active and essential participant 

in making and discovering meaning, in conversation 

with the text and with other readers and communities. 

This addition to the methodological field consciously 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 77 

places contemporary readers in the history of 

interpretations, admitting that our social contexts and 

experiences play profoundly significant, if not 

determinative, roles in our understandings of Scripture. 

Many scholars have found this to be a hallmark of 

postmodernism and a slippery slope into relativism; 

others have discovered here a way through the 

challenges that the historical critical methodologies of 

modernism fail to address.
8

 

Currently, biblical studies is something of an 

eclectic field. Scholars work in one area or another, 

drawing from one, two, or all three of these arenas in 

their readings of biblical texts. Below I will demonstrate 

the value of an imbricated approach, one that 

simultaneously values and layers each of the three 

periods in the recent history of biblical studies: 

contextual work behind the Bible, rhetorical analysis of 

the text itself, and readerly questioning based on their 

own interests and the interests of those with whom they 

are in relationship. I believe this approach will prove 

beneficial for those working in Christian RDA 

organizations—in program development, in the field, 

and even in donor relations. I hope to demonstrate the 

need and possibility for a more robust engagement with 

Scripture where Christian development and gender 

meet. First, I will discuss the intersections of Christian 

development, Scripture, and gender, before proposing 

how to read the Bible for gender in Christian 

development work. 

 

The Bible, Christian Development Work, 

and Gender 
The Bible and Christian Development Work: In 

Walking with the Poor, Bryant Myers (2011 [1999]) 

advocates for a holistic, shalom-centered approach to 

transformational development. Myers’ work is 

important for this discussion because it functions as a 

“primary framing device” within the Accord Network 

(Offutt and Reynolds 2019, 12), particularly on the 

issue of poverty, and is thus likely illustrative of how 

Christian RDA organizations make use of the Bible. 

Myers makes frequent reference to the Bible and the 

Bible’s story, for the goals of transformation are 

“derived from the biblical story” (2011, 330). Myers’ 

view of the Bible is representative of evangelicals, who 

typically have a “high” view of Scripture.
9

 He uses the 

Bible primarily in a way that is generally called “proof-

                                                        
8

 For something of a classic evangelical critique of post-modern methodologies such as reader-response criticism, see 

Barton (1996, especially 235). Sharp (2010), and Clark-Soles (2010) offer more recent and nuanced perspectives. For 

an excellent discussion of the intersection of post-modern relativism and Christian faith, see Downing (2006, 181–

208). 
9

 This is often described as “biblicism,” in which Bible is an object of devotion, is inspired by God, and is the source of 

all spiritual truth (Bebbington 1989, 12–13). For a recent important discussion of the phrase “a high view of Scripture,” 

its implications, and function within the church, see Allert (2007). 

texting,” in which a verse or passage is called upon to 

support a statement or argument without a deeper 

analysis of its text or context. For example, a single 

paragraph about the “Kingdom of God” includes eight 

references to four different biblical books: six are only 

parenthetic references, and the two quotations are 

provided without context (88). There is little critical 

engagement with the Bible in which one would consider 

historical and literary contexts and significant cultural 

issues (for both author and reader). Myers does 

articulate ways in which the Bible can function within 

Christian RDA efforts (beyond merely justifying or 

motivating development work), and he provides 

resources on “Why the Bible is Important” and “How 

the Bible Must Be Used,” including three examples of 

community-based Bible engagement activities in relief 

contexts (330–341). Two appendices with lists of topics 

and corresponding biblical passages follow. These are 

intended to be helpful reference lists, but are also a final 

example of an engagement with the Bible that rarely 

moves beyond citing and describing the chapter and 

verse into a deeper analysis of its meaning in its fuller 

scriptural context (353–355). 

Myers’ goal, of course, is changing relief and 

development work rather than doing biblical study, and 

he does engage significant practitioners in both theology 

and biblical studies. But the book itself manifests a 

curious irony. While building the case for 

transformational development, Myers uses the Bible as 

a supportive document, as mentioned above, primarily 

through the method of “proof-texting.” Yet when 

discussing “how the Bible must be used” (presumably 

in the field), Myers begins to articulate the sort of 

questions and emphases that will interest many 

contemporary biblical scholars. His plea for a “life-to-

Bible” (335) approach to biblical engagement in 

development resonates well with the third category of 

biblical scholarship described above: reading “in front 

of the text.” Myers’ desire to see a reader-centered, 

context-sensitive engagement of the Bible within 

development work is both commendable and 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 78 

admirable, even if it is not consistently engaged.
10

 

Despite the shortcomings, Myers’ desire for a deeper 

engagement with Scripture throughout development 

can compel us toward stronger intersections of gender, 

development, and the Bible. 

A more recent illustration of how the Bible 

operates in Christian development is Selina Palm’s 

survey, “One Body, Many Voices” (2021). This 

important study demonstrates the nuance and 

complexity in biblical reading, interpretation, and 

application found in development contexts in the 

Global South. Palm’s findings include “[n]ew ways of 

reading Scriptures [in Latin America and the 

Caribbean] to open up biblical mandates for inclusive 

social engagement with sacred texts by lay people,” and 

“new contextual African readings” in response to the 

“colonial misuse of Scripture to legitimize slavery and 

colonization…” (24, 38). Palm sees her findings as part 

of the increase in “attention being given to vernacular, 

contextual Bible interpretations from outside the West” 

(24).
11

 The academy’s recent inclusion of reader-

centered methodologies can provide important tools to 

engage audiences within development. Indeed, she 

concludes that “[c]ritical interpretive methodologies 

place the Bible in constructive conversation with 

ordinary people’s lived experiences, diverse faith 

traditions, and the ongoing role of the Spirit within 

communities” (48). When considered in light of Myers’ 

instructions on “how the Bible must be used,” Palm 

provides evidence of the fruit of such labors. 

To this point I have not engaged the subject of 

gender as it relates to biblical study and Christian 

development work. Myers discusses gender, advocating 

for complete inclusion: “Transformational 

development that does not include gender analysis and 

seek the empowerment of women will fail” (113). But 

there is essentially no connection between gender and 

Scripture in Walking with the Poor beyond a sentence 

about the Garden of Eden story: “The relationship 

between men and women became distorted and 

unequal (Gen. 3:16)” (65). But Myers does not address 

gender vis à vis the Bible, and gender does not appear 

among the topics in either appendix of transformation-

relevant biblical passages. Gender does appear in 

                                                        
10

 My critique of Myers will likely sound harsh, but he is simply modeling the dichotomy often seen in biblical studies: 

the academy asks questions of reader, text, and author, while the layperson makes a different use of Scripture 

(something he admits on p. 332). 
11

 Another excellent example appears in the same volume: Solano Miselis and Condori Quispe (2021) engage 

extensively on biblical texts through the lens of ethnicity. 
12

 Pamela Cochran (2005) provides an excellent history of the tangled web of biblical, theological, ecclesial, and 

cultural strands that converge when conservative Christians engage the subject of gender. John Piper and Wayne 

Grudem (2021) reflect contemporary complementarian thinking. 
13

 Crandall’s chapter on Christianity (2011, 105-149) provides a helpful historical overview of the role and status of 

women within Christianity. See also Barr (2021). 

Palm’s survey in a number of places, but not with 

significant attention to how the Bible and theological 

reflection can contribute to the work of gender equality 

as an intersectional component of development. 

 

Christian Development Work and Gender: Just as the 

biblical scholar is likely to ask different questions of the 

Bible than the lay person, the sociologist and 

anthropologist may treat gender differently than the 

theologian or pastor. Reproductive rights and cultural 

expectations within marriage are just two areas in which 

religion exercises powerful influences on gender issues 

in development. Donor constituencies also bring their 

own religious and theological perspectives on gender to 

bear on Christian RDA organizations, and those are 

perspectives to which agencies are naturally attentive. 

As Barbara Crandall (2011), Mariz Tadros (2010), 

and others have noted, gender and religion have a 

complicated relationship. Christianity is no exception. 

Despite the fact that the Christian Scriptures “leave no 

doubt that Jesus treated all people… as equals” 

(Crandall 2011, 129), the history of Christianity is 

unfortunately characterized by hierarchy, war, 

conquest, colonialism, racism, and sexism, the latter 

explored at more length in the Jones and Odhiambo 

article (2025) in this issue. From the fifth century 

onward, women were subjugated within the structure of 

the church and enjoyed precious little agency. Even 

after the Protestant Reformation, a dominant hierarchy 

remained in most of the church. Scripture was and is 

frequently utilized to maintain what is perceived as a 

God-given hierarchy in the family and the Church.
12

 

The Christian Church is a large and complex place, 

however, with much diversity of perspective and 

practice in gender-related issues.
13

 

The situation in development contexts reflects a 

similar complexity. Local religious traditions (Christian 

and otherwise) may certainly contribute to gender 

inequities. But in some quarters religious texts and 

tradition can be reinterpreted to counter gender biases. 

For example, Josephine Para-Mallam Oluwafunmilayo 

notes that “Nigerian women from faith-based 

organizations are now employing religious discourse to 

mobilize against gender discrimination” (2006, 410). 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 79 

Similar work has been observed in Thailand (Tomalin 

2006). Tragically, the long history of colonialism’s 

justification by means of Scripture has created ongoing 

challenges in combating inequality and injustice that 

arise, in many cases, from a colonialized interpretation 

of Scripture (Stegmann and Marlyn Faure 2015). More 

recently, Nyahunda Louis et al. have demonstrated that 

“barriers to gender equality in Nyanga rural district 

[Zimbabwe] are embedded in cultural, religious, and 

political factors” (2021, 33). Clearly, religion often 

inhibits efforts toward gender equality. 

Despite these challenges, many voices within the 

Christian RDA world see faith as an important 

resource. Marshall and Van Saanen (2007) present an 

essentially positive and hopeful view of the partnership 

between the development world and Christian RDA 

organizations. They acknowledge the challenges of 

working across faith and development lines, noting in 

particular women’s rights and reproductive health. But 

gender is not a central focus of this work, and the role 

of the Bible in this intersection is typically left 

unexplored. 

Deryke Belshaw et al. (2000) offer a similarly 

positive perspective, focusing on the relationship 

between the Word Bank and churches in Africa. This 

work provides an assessment of the challenges of 

working in and with churches that bear the image of 

colonialism and function as organizations that 

simultaneously empower and marginalize. While the 

World Bank is “necessarily nonconfessional,” it 

recognizes the need for and value of working with 

Church and other religious organizations (viii). The 

need for gender equality is strongly articulated 

throughout the text, particularly the section on gender 

and AIDS. But as in other places, the promise of hope 

and good gender work for the church (and other 

Christian organizations) is not robustly connected to 

biblical studies. Scripture is referenced on several 

occasions throughout the essays in the collection, but 

the most thorough engagement resembles the kind of 

“proof-texting” method we see in Myers.
14

 

 

The Bible, Christian Development Work, and Gender: 

Careful students of the Bible are aware of the challenges 

of reading the Bible for gender equality. Because the 

communities of ancient Israel, second-temple Judaism, 

and early Christianity were part of broader patriarchal 

societal structures, the texts they produced bear the 

marks of that patriarchy and its concomitant hierarchy. 

Scholarship has long contested the degree to which the 

                                                        
14

 See, for example, the list of leadership qualities evinced by the biblical character Joseph (37), and a list of passages 

illustrating that “The whole message of the Bible is about HOPE, LOVE, and the FUTURE” (139). 
15

 The concept of a “biblical teaching” is more complicated than often realized; what the Bible teaches is typically a 

manifestation of a faith community’s interpretation of biblical texts. 

Bible’s teachings on a number of societal issues can and 

should address our contemporary perspectives and 

behavior (e.g., slavery, the Sabbath, religion-state 

relationships, the role of women, human sexuality).
15

 

Thus, when we look to the Bible, we must be critically 

aware of the cultural markers borne by the text. And we 

must be willing to bring those markers into conversation 

with our own beliefs, which are often developed in 

conversation with a range of biblical texts in the first 

place. This is challenging work, as it frequently finds 

opposition within the hierarchic structures of Christian 

organizations (including the church). An example from 

one Christian RDA organization might be helpful. 

In 1999, Linda Tripp published her account of 

gender work within World Vision. As World Vision 

Canada’s Vice President of Advocacy, Tripp was well-

positioned to give account of World Vision’s work in 

the latter part of the twentieth century, as well as the 

organization’s biblical and theological reasonings 

behind it. What Tripp calls “gender issues” (64) were 

incorporated into World Vision’s programming in a 

variety of ways, because “at least half those living in 

poverty are women and girls” (64). Tripp acknowledged 

that local culture and tradition can justify “the denial of 

access to resources and services, including education 

and health-care” (64) to women and girls. She 

addressed the relationships at the heart of the work: “A 

concern for gender issues and women’s poverty is 

therefore a concern about the roles and relationships 

which regulate women and men in their daily lives and 

about how these relationships support or subjugate, 

empower or deny the individual to engage fully in life — 

physically, socially, and spiritually” (64). 

Tripp recounts that in 1989, “gender issues 

became a priority for World Vision’s Council and 

Board,” which appointed a “Women’s Commission” 

(65). One task of that commission was to write a 

theological reflection paper that would provide a 

biblical foundation for a new policy to address the lack 

of women in both organizational structure and 

programming. Tripp laments the “slow process” of 

policy implementation but celebrates the appointment 

of a first international “Director of Gender and 

Development” in 1998 (65). 

Tripp’s presentation of the biblical and theological 

justification for World Vision’s work toward gender 

equality draws attention to Jesus’ treatment of women 

(nearly universally positive), his breaking of societal 

norms concerning women’s health, inviting women into 

the public sphere, and addressing the sexual 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 80 

exploitation of women. She quite generally addresses 

Pauline texts often used to justify unequal treatment (at 

best) and misogyny (at worst) (67). This is a helpful 

document that demonstrates that World Vision was 

considering issues of gender, both organizationally and 

programmatically, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

But Tripp does not address the Old Testament or some 

of the more challenging New Testament texts regarding 

gender, and the lasting impact of her work is unclear.
16

 

I hope to demonstrate a different, more useful way to 

make use of Scripture at the nexus of gender and 

Christian development work.
17

 

As indicated above, recent decades have seen a 

rich expansion of biblical studies methodologies 

centered in the interests of contemporary readers and 

their identities, socio-economic statuses, affinities, etc.
18

 

These developments are not limited to Protestant 

scholarship; Roman Catholic readers are engaging the 

same questions (Kelly-Zutcowski 2005), as are those in 

Judaism (Aschkenasy 1998, Freymer-Kensky 2004, 

Scholz 2017) and Islam (Rahemtulla 2018). This 

flourishing coincides with increasing awareness of non-

Western readings in development contexts and the 

burgeoning need for gender-sensitive engagement with 

the Bible, despite its challenging history and 

characteristics. If we do not wish to reject difficult texts 

out of hand, we must find ways of reading difficult texts 

that focus on the marginalized, celebrate their 

perseverance, mourn their mistreatment, and consider 

their subversions as potentially inspirational. Following 

some methodological considerations, I reflect on a few 

biblical texts in hopes of modeling how development 

practitioners might incorporate a gender-sensitive 

                                                        
16

 In 2022 I worked with the World Vision US Gender Equality and Social Inclusion team to develop a GESI and 

Faith Reference Guide. World Vision GESI staff were unaware of Tripp’s article, and while WV had developed other 

internal documentation addressing gender in their development programming, it lacked the biblical connections Tripp 

was intent on making. 
17

 World Vision is not by far, of course, the only Christian RDA organization incorporating gender in their 

programming. Tearfund’s “Transforming Masculinities” program makes explicit connections to faith and Jesus 

(Deepan 2024 and Deepan and Blake 2025, in this issue), and their “Hand in Hand” Bible studies demonstrate how 

the Bible can be used to address gender in development contexts (Tearfund 2015). 
18

 For examples of feminist readings, see Bellis (2007), Gafney (2017), Graybill and Huber (2021), and Melanchthon 

and Whitaker (2021). Latina/o examples can be found in Lozada Jr. and Segovia (2014). For an exploration of the role 

of the Bible in the lives of some prominent African American Women, see Owens (2013). 
19

 In the examples that follow, I focus on the women in the stories. They are most often the marginalized in both the 

Bible and in contemporary society. But gender-sensitive readings can and should also include men, who are subject to 

the same societal structures. I should also mention that some biblical interpreters have found in the presence of 

eunuchs in various biblical passages (particularly the Book of Esther and Acts 8) opportunities to consider the 

presence of intersex individuals in the Bible. A separate paper could address the intersection of the Bible, Christian 

development work, and disability/social inclusion. See Moss and Schipper (2011). 
20

 Section I of Graybill and Huber (2021) contains eight essays that “engage in rich historical and literary analysis” (15). 

See also Ackerman (1998), Bird (1997), and Kraemer and D’Angelo (1999). 

approach to reading Scripture for both personal 

spiritual enrichment and professional mission. 

 

Reading the Bible for Gender
19

 in 

Development Contexts 
A Three-Fold Approach: As I described above, the 

movements in biblical studies over the last 150 years 

have provided necessary corrections and openings, 

allowing for readings that are less dependent upon what 

texts may have meant in the past, and more centered on 

speaking to the experience of readers in the present. 

These shifts in biblical scholarship have paved the way 

for women to exercise their gifts more fully in the 

church, as well as within Reformed and Conservative 

Judaism. Reading “before the text” has provided for 

greater equality within communities of faith, and there 

is evidence that such readings are providing for fresh 

opportunities in development contexts. But these 

changes do not require a rejection of historic 

interpretive interests (those that are rooted in the author 

and the text). 

Reading “within” and “behind” the text can also 

prove beneficial to a gender-supportive hermeneutic. 

Careful historical work on the ancient world can 

unearth data about the lived realities of women in the 

ancient world, which can then better inform our 

readings of biblical texts.
20

 Similarly, attention to the 

rhetorical artistry of biblical narratives can help us 

notice the way texts often work to shape the reader’s 

understanding of character and plot. These 

explorations “behind” and “within” the text will not 

always result in encouraging or hopeful interpretations 

for some, but they will expand the understanding and 

visions of others by providing valuable insight, thus 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 81 

contributing to a reader’s response “before” a text. 

Another important reason for continuing to allow for 

readings “behind” and “within” the text is strategic. 

Many evangelical readers favor historical 

interpretations in hopes of arriving at the “original” 

meaning of a text.
21

 This corresponds to the common 

evangelical belief in the inerrancy and/or infallibility of 

Scripture. Readings that purport to find meaning 

beyond the original authors’ intent or the early 

audiences’ understanding can appear to run the risk of 

relativism. Incorporating historical inquiry alongside 

textual and readerly interpretation can encourage those 

who might be less comfortable reading for the artistry 

or the activity of the text in relationship with its readers. 

I therefore advocate for a three-fold approach to 

reading the Bible in which all three areas of 

engagement—behind, within, and before—function and 

inform one another simultaneously. In following 

examples, I attempt 1) to demonstrate that attention to 

historical information will make a text more accessible 

to contemporary readers, 2) to illustrate that how a text 

is written can affect its meaning, and 3) to invite 

questions that probe the intersection of Christian 

development and gender. I trust that those in the field 

will find themselves asking more salient questions of 

their own. 

 
Achsah’s Inheritance: Joshua 15:13–19 tells the story of 

Achsah, daughter of the ancient Israelite hero Caleb. 

The context is one of conquest. Joshua has led the 

Israelites across the Jordan river and into the promised 

land, and they have conquered the territory of the 

Canaanites. At this point in the narrative, Joshua is 

allocating the newly conquered territory to the various 

tribes. He grants a certain territory and its cities to 

Caleb, who needs to defeat two cities before assuming 

control. He takes care of the first city by himself, but 

asks for assistance in defeating the second city (Kiriath-

sepher): 

Caleb said, “Whoever attacks Kiriath-sepher and 
takes it, to him I will give my daughter Achsah as wife.” 
Othniel son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and 
he gave him his daughter Achsah as wife (Joshua 15:16-

17
22

) 

The gender-sensitive reader will immediately 

notice that Caleb offers his daughter as both incentive 

and reward. She is the prize for Othniel, and the price 

that Caleb is willing to pay for his final victory. All 

                                                        
21

 A classic and still popular example of such an approach is Fee and Stuart (1993). 
22

 All translations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Updated Version. 
23

 This is an excellent example of Hebrew narrative’s use of silence to convey a non-response. We see similar 

situations in dialogue, in which one conversation participant simply does not respond to the other. The first speaker is 

then reintroduced by an unnecessary “Then [they] said,” which emphasizes the absence of a response. See Exodus 

33:20–21 for another example. 

cultures, ancient and modern, have complex rites and 

customs surrounding marriage, including bride prices 

and dowries. While we might not understand the 

precise cultural meanings behind Caleb’s offer of his 

daughter or the relationship between a typical bride-

price and the risk that Othniel takes in battle, the text 

raises such questions and asks us to wonder about the 

use of a daughter as a reward for military achievement 

(we find a similar situation between Saul and David in 

1 Samuel 18, in which Saul offers his daughter Merab 

to David in return for David’s “valiant” battle 

performance). 

Othniel also bears notice as a relative of Caleb. 

Though the precise relationships between men is often 

difficult to determine in the Hebrew Bible (a “brother” 

can have a broader meaning than one who shares a 

father or mother), the identification of the winning 

warrior in this passage as a relative of Caleb indicates 

that this marriage is particularly suitable in a culture that 

practices endogamy. Readers in contemporary 

endogamic societies will find a connection to and 

understanding of this feature of the story that Western 

readers will not. 

The next scene in the story changes this situation 

from a seemingly harmful patriarchal practice in which 

a woman has little or no agency, into a much more 

complex episode in which a woman exercises at least 

limited self-determination. 

When she came to him, she urged him to ask her 
father for a field. As she dismounted from her donkey, 
Caleb said to her, “What do you want?” She said to 
him, “Give me a present; since you have set me in the 
land of the Negeb, give me springs of water as well.” So 
Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs. 

(Joshua 15:18-19) 

This somewhat cryptic passage is rich with 

complexities that break down societal and readerly 

expectations and demonstrate Achsah’s desire and 

capacity to advocate for herself—even to the point of 

claiming property. Achsah is not content with the land 

in which her father has “set” her; the Negeb is quite dry, 

and her portion is apparently unsuitable for her 

purposes. She initially “urges” her husband to advocate 

on her behalf, but whether he does or does not is left 

unsaid. Something seems to be missing after the first 

sentence, and the reader is left to fill in the gap.
23

 We 

might assume that even if Othniel did do as she urged, 

she was not pleased with the result. Or we might assume 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 82 

that Othniel did nothing. The story moves immediately 

from her urging her new husband to her approaching 

her father directly. Caleb’s words to his daughter, 

“What do you want?” could indicate either concern or 

annoyance.
24

 Is he troubled by his daughter, or is he 

troubled for her? The language invites the reader to 

make decisions about the story itself. The reader’s 

choice will be influenced by any number of things, 

including their assumptions about the daughter-father 

relationship. Achsah then makes her case: the land 

where he has put her is dry, and she wants access to 

water as well. 

The reader is left with several gaps, and our own 

cultural norms and expectations will want to fill them 

in. How we fill them will be determined by our own 

frameworks and interests. Because Achsah is given as a 

prize, we might assume that she has no agency or voice. 

And when she is displeased, her request first goes to her 

husband. That first request for a field may have been 

fulfilled by her father (with the dry Negeb), but the way 

the narrative moves immediately to her response shifts 

our attention away from the men and directly to Achsah 

herself. She thus inverts the patriarchal structure by 

reversing the sequence of the initial narrative: she is 

given by Caleb to Othniel, but when Othniel fails her, 

she goes directly to Caleb. And her father does not fail 

her this time. 

This is not the only instance in the Hebrew Bible 

in which women are permitted to inherit land (see 

Numbers 27), but most careful readers will recognize a 

certain uniqueness to Achsah’s story. Here is a woman 

who does not settle for an unacceptable portion, and 

she does not settle for a husband who will not 

adequately advocate on her behalf. She does not resist 

the violence of a marriage won by military victory, but 

neither does she accept a marriage that will not meet 

her needs. She deserves and demands full access. 

Contemporary readers will compare their own agency 

with Achsah’s and might also wonder about how this 

story would have encouraged women in similar 

situations across the centuries of the story’s telling. 
 

Huldah the Prophetess: In the latter years of Ancient 

Judah, king Josiah ordered a restoration of the 

Jerusalem temple. During that process, the high priest 

reported, 

“I have found the book of the law
25
 in the house of 

the LORD.” (2 Kings 22:8) 

                                                        
24

 A word-for-word translation of his address is “What to/for you?” 
25

 While most English version translate the Biblical Hebrew word torah as “law,” it is best understood as “teaching.” 

Just what the high priest discovered in the temple is thought by most scholars to be some form of the book of 

Deuteronomy. 
26

 The story is repeated in 2 Chronicles 34:22–28. The circumstances around the discovery of the torah are slightly 

different in the Chronicler’s account, but the portion of the story about Huldah is essentially the same. 

The book is taken to the king, who directs the 

priest to: 

“inquire of the LORD for me, for the people, and 
for all Judah…” So the priest… went to the prophet 
Huldah the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah…; she 

resided in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter, where they 
consulted her. She declared to them, “Thus says the 
LORD, the God of Israel…” (2 Kings 22:13-15). 

Huldah then speaks on behalf of God. This is a 

relatively rare circumstance of a woman serving as 

God’s mouthpiece, and this particular situation 

demonstrates one of the roles of a prophet: speaking 

truth to power. Prophets in the ancient world worked 

in several spheres. Some operated within the palace as 

counselors to the king. Others existed outside the 

power structures of temple and palace providing check 

to help balance the powers. Huldah’s (God’s!) message 

to the king is not a happy one, but the divine word 

instigates significant religious reforms. We hear no 

more of Huldah after this episode,
26

 but her brief 

appearance requires additional comment. 

The high priest is commanded to “inquire of the 

LORD,” and the priest goes immediately to Huldah. 

The priest does not pray, and he does not visit a male 

prophet. He goes to Huldah, and the king does not balk 

at the message Huldah returns. Everyone believes what 

she says, and they respond with significant, national 

religious reform. And while the reform that ensues is 

described purely in religious terms, the prophets were 

known for articulating the intersection between religion 

and socio-economics (Brueggemann 1978, 17). It is 

quite possible that this reform movement involved 

addressing matters of injustice as well as religious 

infidelity. 

Huldah is described as a prophetess and as the wife 

of Shallum, who may have been the grandson of a 

government official. So while she may be tangentially 

connected to the government, she does not live in the 

temple region or in the palace complex. So why do 

these officials travel to consult Huldah? The lack of an 

explanation in the text indicates that none is necessary. 

The officials went to Huldah because she was known 

and trusted. Her reputation made her the logical 

choice, and the reader may well assume that this was 

not the first time they had visited her. 

Finally, while modern readers might be surprised 

to find a woman consulted in such serious matters, the 

biblical text itself treats this as business as usual. There 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 83 

is no hint in the text that this was a surprising action for 

the king’s officials to take, which might give the lie to 

the reality that relatively few women in the Hebrew 

Bible are thus represented. Huldah is indeed one of 

several women who speak about or on behalf of God in 

the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Miriam, Hannah, Deborah, 

and Abigail), and these occasions are rightly celebrated. 

But the number of female voices is far, far exceeded by 

the males who speak for the divine. Contemporary 

readers are thus left with the question of whether the 

Bible accurately reflects the reality of the ancient world, 

or whether Scripture is overly selective in determining 

which women’s stories are told. Today’s readers will 

also compare the work of Huldah to their own 

experience of women operating within the religious 

structures of the day and will place this text in 

conversation with other biblical passages that bear on 

the roles of women in society more broadly. 

 
The Syro-Phoenician Woman: While the story of 

Achsah illustrates the complicated agency of a daughter 

given as a battle prize and Huldah demonstrates the 

reality of a woman moving among the powerful, other 

biblical texts show us women in entirely different 

situations. We find women and children who are much 

closer to those development practitioners might 

encounter, people whose stories might resonate with 

people in today’s Global South. The vulnerability of an 

unnamed immigrant mother is on full display in the 

gospel of Mark, when a woman approaches Jesus to 

seek help for her daughter: 

[A] woman whose little daughter had an 
unclean spirit immediately heard about [Jesus], 
and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now 

the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician 
origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of 
her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children 
be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s 
food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered 
him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the 
children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For 
saying that, you may go—the demon has left your 
daughter.” And when she went home, she found 
the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone 

(Mark 7:25–30). 

Ethnicity, gender, and access are at play in this 

story, and Jesus’ initial response will likely offend our 

modern sensibilities. “Dogs” is a derogatory term in 

many cultures. In this context it likely refers to her non-

Jewish identity.
27

 The description of her as a “Gentile, 

of Syrophoenician origin” provides the background for 

the insult. Syro-Phoenicia was a territory north of the 

                                                        
27

 In Matthew’s account of this conversation, the woman is identified as a “Canaanite,” a term used of the original 

inhabitants of the land of Israel prior to the conquest in Joshua 1–11 (Matt. 15:21–28), and thus an anachronistic insult 

during Jesus’ day. In each account she is clearly marked as Other, by both the writers and by Jesus. 

Sea of Galilee. She is both a religious and geographic 

outsider. Jesus attempts to dismiss her, but this mother 

does not give up. While she does not deny her status as 

a “dog,” she protests that her status should not 

determine her access. Even dogs get crumbs from the 

children. Jesus agrees. 

We do not know whether Jesus actually intended 

to dismiss the mother, or whether he is taking the 

opportunity to critique any social or theological position 

that would deny the demon-possessed child his 

assistance. I contend that Jesus’ original intention is 

irretrievable and does not matter, given the text’s 

ambiguity. If readers change the tone of Jesus’ voice, 

they might hear sarcasm, sorrow, or condemnation. 

Was he performing for those listening standing nearby? 

Did he wink at the woman while he played to the 

crowd? Each possibility will change the status of the 

woman in Jesus’ eyes. In Matthew’s version of the story 

(Matthew 15:21-28), Jesus twice rejects her plea, which 

invites for further exploration of how he might really see 

her. But in each version, the mother’s persistence 

changes Jesus’ mind, and he acts on her behalf. The 

story thus demonstrates the injustices of human 

structures that harm women, children, and the ill. And 

it shows that human resistance to those structures can 

subvert them—even those structures that are 

purportedly of divine origin. 

We should also note that the woman places herself 

in her own child’s position in her response to Jesus. Just 

as her child needs deliverance, so is she a “child” who 

needs food, willing to pick up scraps from under the 

table. Mothers reading this story will hear it in ways that 

fathers may not, and mothers will appreciate the wily 

nature of her protest. Finally, the unnamed woman’s 

agency is found solely in her own strength. No family 

beyond her ill child are named; we may assume she is a 

single mother, widowed or unmarried, in a foreign land. 

 
In Practice: Many other stories from both the Hebrew 

Bible and Christian Scriptures could be examined in 

similar ways. Intentionally reading behind, within, and 

before the text allows for multiple perspectives and 

retellings that attend to the nuances of the texts. Readers 

can simultaneously celebrate and mourn as they find 

their own voices and experiences in the text and in 

community with other readers. As a healthy, white, cis-

gendered, middle-class American male with an 

extensive education, I am challenged to acknowledge 

that my connections to each of these stories lie entirely 

within the power structures of the day. If I “identify” 

with any of the characters in these texts, I must identify 

with the colonizing patriarch Caleb, the priestly class 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 84 

hearing the “word of the LORD” from Huldah, and 

those using “dog” to label the immigrant mother with a 

sick child. I am also married, a parent, and part of an 

interracial household. These factors increase my 

interest in reading for women, children, and the 

marginalized. A three-fold reading in community with 

others can thus enrich our perspectives, enhance our 

understanding of the texts, and compel us to discover 

different and deeper meanings as we are variously 

centered and de-centered in our interpretations. 

Reading the Bible in this way requires time and 

patience. One cannot simply provide a parenthetic 

reference as evidence of how the Bible supports a 

program in gender equality. These texts are too 

complicated for that type of usage, but they are no less 

our Scripture for their complexity or for their resistance 

to proof-texting. Gender and our experiences of it 

(within and outside Christian RDA work) are as 

complicated as these narratives. Both our sacred texts 

and the lives of those we serve deserve the time and 

nuance of careful reading and listening. Whether the 

stories we read are encouraging or discouraging, 

whether they empower or frustrate, they provide 

opportunities to attend to one another through our 

listening to both the texts and our co-listeners. They can 

and should be read in community, whether that 

community is developing gender equality 

programming, training local staff, or implementing new 

work.  

 

Conclusion 
The Bible has played a vital role in Christian RDA 

efforts since their proliferation in the aftermath of 

World War II. The transformational paradigm 

articulated by Bryant Myers relies heavily on a shared 

belief in the authority and relevance of the Bible, but 

the manner in which the Bible is typically used in 

Christian development literature is not adequate for 

addressing the specific needs of gender work. Recent 

developments in the field of biblical studies provide an 

opportunity for engaging the Bible through the lens of 

gender in development and vice versa. Current 

development work in the Global South demonstrates 

the possibility of meaningful “life-to-Bible” 

engagement, and Christian RDA organizations and 

practitioners would do well to incorporate gender-

sensitive biblical engagement at all levels: in 

professional development, program development and 

implementation, and constituency relationships. 

 

 

References 

 
Ackerman, Susan. 1998. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, 

Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New 

York: Doubleday. 

Allert, Craig D. 2007. A High View of Scripture? The 
Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the 
New Testament Canon. Grand Rapids: Baker 

Academic. 

Aschkenasy, Nehama. 1998. Woman at the Window: 

Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape. Detroit: 

Wayne State University Press. 

Barr, Beth Allison. 2021. The Making of Biblical 
Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women 
Became Gospel Truth. Grand Rapids: Brazos 

Press. 

Barton, John. 1996. Reading the Old Testament: 
Method in Biblical Study. Revised and enlarged. 

Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 

Bebbington, David. 1989. Evangelicalism in Modern 

Britain. London: Routledge. 

Bellis, Alice Ogden. 2007. Helpmates, Harlots, and 
Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 

Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 

Belshaw, Deryke, Robert Calderisi, and Christopher 

Sugden, eds. 2000. Faith in Development: 
Partnership between the World Bank and the 
Churches of Faith in Africa. Washington: World 

Bank Publications. 

Bird, Phyllis. 1997. Missing Persons and Mistaken 
Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. 
Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Brueggemann, Walter. 1978. The Prophetic 
Imagination. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Clark-Soles, Jaime. 2010. Engaging the Word: The 
New Testament and the Christian Believer. 
Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 

Cochran, Pamela D.H. 2005. Evangelical Feminism: A 
History. New York: New York University Press. 

Crandall, Barbara. 2011. Gender and Religion, 2nd 
Edition: The Dark Side of Scripture. London: 

Continuum. 

Deepan, Prabu. 2021. “How Jesus Is Transforming 

Masculinity.” 

https://www.tearfund.org/stories/2021/11/how-

jesus-is-transforming-masculinity. 

Deepan, Prabu, and Ruby Blake. 2025. “Transforming 

Masculinities: A Personal Narrative of a 

Continuing Journey.” Christian Relief, 

Development, and Advocacy 6 (2): 62–68. 

Downing, Crystal. 2006. How Postmodernism Serves 
(My) Faith: Questioning Truth in Language, 
Philosophy, and Art. Downers Grove: InterVarsity 

Press. 

Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas K. Stuart. 1993. How to 
Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to 
Understanding the Bible. 2

nd

 ed. Grand Rapids: 

Zondervan. 

Freymer-Kensky, Tikva. 2014. Reading the Women of 
the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories. 
New York: Schocken Books. 

https://www.tearfund.org/stories/2021/11/how-jesus-is-transforming-masculinity
https://www.tearfund.org/stories/2021/11/how-jesus-is-transforming-masculinity


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 85 

Gafney, Wilda C. 2017. Womanist Midrash: A 
Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and 
the Throne. Louisville: Westminster John Knox 

Press. 

Gonzáles, Justo. 1994. “How the Bible Has Been 

Interpreted in the Christian Tradition.” In The 
New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E. 

Keck, 83–106. Nashville: Abingdon. 

Graybill, Rhiannon, and Lynn R. Huber, eds. 2021. 

The Bible, Gender, and Sexuality: Critical 
Readings. London: T&T Clark. 

Jones, Emily, and Jacqueline Odiahambo. 2025. 

Destigmatizing Eve: Tackling the Underlying 

Culture of Patriarchal Honor & Shame 

Undermining the Work of Christian Relief and 

Development.  Christian Relief, Development, 
and Advocacy 6 (2): 23–38. 

Johnston, Robert K. 1982. “Interpreting Scripture: 

Literary Criticism and Evangelical Hermeneutics.” 

Christianity and Literature 32 (1): 33–47. 

Kelly-Zutcowski, Mara. 2005. “The Subversiveness of 

the Marginalized Women of Scripture: Models of 

Faith and Action for Twenty-First Century 

Women.” Gender Issues 22 (4): 29–42. 

Kraemer, Ross Shephard, and Mary Rose D’Angelo. 

1999. Women and Christian Origins. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press. 

Louis, Nyahunda, Chibvura Shyleen, and Happy M. 

Tirivangasi. 2021. “Barriers towards Sustainable 

Development Goal (Sdg 5): On Achieving Gender 

Equality and Empowerment of Women and Girls 

in Nyanga Rural District of Manicaland Province, 

Zimbabwe.” African Journal of Gender, Society 
and Development 10 (3): 33–53. 

Lozada Jr., Francisco, and Fernando F. Segovia. 2014. 

Latino/a Biblical Hermeneutics: Problems, 
Objectives, Strategies. Atlanta: SBL Press. 

Marshall, Katherine, and Marisa Van Saanen. 2007. 

Development and Faith: Where Mind, Heart and 
Soul Work Together. Washington, DC: The 

International Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development / World Bank. 

McKenzie, Steven, and Stephen Hayes. 1999. To Each 
Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical 

Criticisms and Their Application. Revised and 

expanded. Louisville: Westminster John Knox 

Press. 

Melanchthon, Monica Jyotsna, and Robyn J. Whitaker, 

eds. 2021. Terror in the Bible: Rhetoric, Gender, 
and Violence. International Voices in Biblical 

Studies 14. Atlanta: SBL Press. 

Miselis, Jocabed Reina Solano, and Juana Luiza 

Condori Quispe. 2021. “Abya Yala: ‘A House that 

Sings for All Nations.’” In Theologies and 
Practices of Inclusion, edited by Nina Kurlberg 

and Madleina Daehnhardt, 299–316. London: 

SCM Press. 

Moss, Candida R., and Jeremy Schipper, eds. 2011. 

Disability Studies and Biblical Literature. New 

York: Palgrave MacMillan. 

Myers, Bryant L. 2011. Walking With The Poor: 
Principles and Practices of Transformational 
Development. Revised and expanded. Maryknoll, 

NY: Orbis Books. 

Offutt, Stephen, and Amy Reynolds. 2019. “Christian 

Ideas of Development: Understanding the Current 

Theories, Networks, and Priorities of Accord 

Organizations.” Christian Relief, Development, 
and Advocacy 1 (1): 1–14. 

Oluwafunmilayo, Josephine Para-Mallam. 2006. 

“Faith, Gender and Development Agendas in 

Nigeria: Conflicts, Challenges, and 

Opportunities.” Gender and Development 14 (3): 

409–421. 

Owens, Robin L. 2013. “Scriptures and Identity 

Formation: Transgressing the Boundaries of 

Disciplinary Readings.” Journal of Feminist 
Studies in Religion 29 (2): 138–146. 

Palm, Selina. 2021. “One Body, Many Voices: 

Theological Perspectives on Inclusion and 

Diversity in the Global South.” In Theologies and 
Practices of Inclusion, edited by Nina Kurlberg 

and Madleina Daehnhardt, 21–55. London: SCM 

Press. 

Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. 2021. 

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 

2
nd

 ed. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway. 

Powell, Mark Allan, 1995. “Narrative Criticism.” In 

Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for 

Interpretation, edited by Joel B. Green, 239–255. 

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 

Sharp, Caroline. 2010. Wrestling the Word: The 
Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Believer. 
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 

Rahemtulla, Shadaab. 2018. Qur’an of the Oppressed: 
Liberation Theology and Gender Justice in Islam. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Scholz, Susanne. 2017. Introducing the Women’s 
Hebrew Bible: Feminism, Gender Justice, and the 

Study of the Old Testament. 2
nd

 ed. London: 

Bloomsbury T&T Clark. 

Stegmann, Robert N., and Marlyn Faure. 2015. 

“Reading Scripture in a Post-Apartheid South 

Africa: Re-Imagining Gendered Identity 

Hermeneutically.” Religion & Theology 22: 219–

249. 

Strauss, Mark. 2014. Mark. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 

Sugirtharajah, Rasiah S. 2016. Voices from the Margin: 

Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. 3rd ed. 
Maryknoll: Orbis Books. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(2), Winter 2025  

Smith, Reading the Bible for Gender in Development 86 

Tadros, Mariz. 2010. “Faith-Based Organizations and 

Service Delivery: Some Gender Conundrums.” 

Gender and Development 11. New York: 

UNRISD. 

Tate, William Randolph. 2014. Biblical Interpretation: 

An Integrated Approach. 3
rd

 ed. Grand Rapids: 

Baker Academic Press. 

Tearfund. 2015. “Hand in Hand: Bible Studies to 

Transform Our Response to Sexual Violence.” 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/series/cha

nging-gender-norms-transforming-

masculinities/hand-in-hand-bible-studies-to-

transform-our-response-to-sexual-violence.  

Tomalin, Emma. 2006. “Religion and a Rights-Based 

Approach to Development.” Progress in 

Development Studies 6 (2): 93–108. 

Tripp, Linda. 1999. “Gender and Development from a 

Christian Perspective: Experience from World 

Vision.” Gender and Development 7 (1): 62–68. 

Yee, Gale A., ed. 2007. Judges and Method: New 
Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2

nd

 ed. 

Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

 
 

 

Brian Albert Smith (PhD, Hebrew Union College—

Jewish Institute of Religion) is Professor of Hebrew 

Bible at Messiah University, where he teaches Bible 

and Biblical Hebrew. He also co-directs Thriving 

Together: Congregations for Racial Justice. 

 

Author email: bsmith@messiah.edu 
 

 

 

 

https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/series/changing-gender-norms-transforming-masculinities/hand-in-hand-bible-studies-to-transform-our-response-to-sexual-violence
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/series/changing-gender-norms-transforming-masculinities/hand-in-hand-bible-studies-to-transform-our-response-to-sexual-violence
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/series/changing-gender-norms-transforming-masculinities/hand-in-hand-bible-studies-to-transform-our-response-to-sexual-violence
https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/series/changing-gender-norms-transforming-masculinities/hand-in-hand-bible-studies-to-transform-our-response-to-sexual-violence
mailto:bsmith@messiah.edu

