Christianity and women

BrianCalgary

Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch
> When Paul rules that women must not exercise authority in the
> church, and bases that on Adam being created first, is he just
> spinning a tale to ensure his whim goes?

Many people would suggest that he was. Certainly, he was following a well-trodden path in denying equal treatment and equal social rights to women.

Rights, I might add that are still being routinely denied for religious reasons, in many countries no more than a stone's throw from where I'm writing this, in a hotel in Bahrain.


Paul's treatment of women in Ephesians suggested was as such: women for the first time given the opportunity to be taught, as the church devoted itself to the apostles teachings (Acts 2:42-48). The women were treating it as a social outing and were yacking away and shouting out questions, not recognizing the decorum of a classroom setting. Paul had to ask the women to be quiet so that teaching could occur. It was not a situation of putting men over women.

Bahrain. Robin do you ever get around.

What views exist out there of how Christainity treats women?

robindch

> It was not a situation of putting men over women.

I think that Paul would disagree with you. To pick one example, see this quote from Paul's letter to Timothy:

2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

...which is a straightforward justification of the oppression of women. Using creationism as the motive reason, I might add.

Ba_barbaraAnne

This is another example of the words of the Bible being selected to suit a particular viewpoint. The story of woman being created from the rib of Adam appears in Genesis 2: 18-22. However, in Genesis 1:27 the first man and woman were created simultaneously.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Paul used the part of Genesis that supported the patriarchal society of the time, rather than treat men and women equally, as Jesus did.

What a lot that man has to answer for!

John Doe

Men and women are equal, full stop. (Though not the same, thank God!) I am completely intractable on this issue and will disagree with any part of any religion that says otherwise. As far as I can see, following Jesus Christ would lead me into no such disagreement. Perhaps following Paul would, but nobody's claiming that he's the Messiah! Or are they?

Excelsior

Definitely not. And Jesus was absolutely shocking (in his day and would be in some quarters today) in the extent to which he treated women equally. Paul was speaking to local contexts in his letters to Corinth and Ephesus, he did not mean that women should not be in leadership generally (seeing as he puts women in leadership in other churches). Finally, you are quoting the Bible word for word when you say "Men and women are created equal".

BrianCalgary

I agree with Excelsior as to Paul addressing a particular situation in Corinth and Ephesus. When the Holy Spirit doles out spiritual gifts, including teaching and preaching He does not base them on sex.

Therefore women teachers and preachers would be fine.

bmoferrall

This isn't an issue I'd given much thought to.
However, I think it goes to the heart of how we view scripture, and particularly Paul's letters.
i.e. Are all the NT teachings of Paul infallible and inerrant, carrying with them God's imprimatur, or, could parts be subject to (myopic) human error? I don't subscribe to the latter. The danger of it, of course, is that it can lead to strong reactions like those above from Scofflaw and Barbara - to dismiss a colossus like Paul in this way is a travesty (for a Christian anyway).

Paul wrote:

1 Timothy 2: 11-14
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

To me, the contextual argument seems weak in this case. It's quite possible that he meant it in a local context, but surely he could have worded it differently to remove any doubt? [When Paul wrote that 'all scripture is God-breathed' did he know that his letters would eventually carry the same weight as OT scripture, and be picked over and parsed by audiences 2000 years later?] The sentence "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" seems to generalise what precedes it. On the other hand, we know that Paul commended Priscilla who (along with her husband Aquila) taught the preacher Apollos (Acts 18). Other women, such as Phoebe, held positions of responsibility in the early church (Romans 16).

A friend who attends a Baptist church tells me that they don't allow women to preach the main sermon at Sunday service. However, women do teach on other occasions (Bible study, Sunday school, etc.).
A similar approach seems to be adopted by the church I currently attend (I must ask about the official thinking on this issue).

Then again, since Paul is referencing the 'metaphorical' Adam and Eve, maybe he's speaking allegorically .

bmoferrall

bmoferrall wrote:

To me, the contextual argument seems weak in this case.

If we are to view this issue in a local context only, does the same apply to the following paragraph:

1 Timothy 3:1-5
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

We often hear this quoted (correctly I believe) to argue that prospective pastors in general should first prove themselves in their own home, before being chosen for any leadership position. I've never heard it said that this passage was only relevant to the churches where Timothy pastored.

It all seems like a bit of a fudge to me...or am I missing something?

John Doe

Myself, I don't care whether Paul was speaking allegorically, specifically to his own situation or laying down what he supposed was the infallible word of God, I'm still going to reject anything that's sexist. If Jesus had been sexist then I would have less time for him too. Luckily, he wasn't. I don't suppose he could have been if he was God.

Paul wrote:

1 Timothy 2: 11-14
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This passage is repellent. It is not the word of my God, that's for sure. I'd be disappointed in anyone who thinks that their God could directly 'breathe' something so obviously dangerous and repressive. It's up to everyone to choose for themselves whether the above represents 'loving all his children equally'.

bmoferrall

John Doe wrote:

This passage is repellent. It is not the word of my God, that's for sure. I'd be disappointed in anyone who thinks that their God could directly 'breathe' something so obviously dangerous and repressive. It's up to everyone to choose for themselves whether the above represents 'loving all his children equally'.

To be fair, Paul is talking here about conduct in a church context.

I absolutely agree about Jesus treating men and women as equals. Likewise, Paul and Peter.
But it's surely significant that Jesus only chose men as his apostles? Again, guided by the Holy Spirit, and in the presence of women, a man was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 1).
Is it not just a case of selecting appropriate roles for different people, and in the interests of establishing some kind of order? Men and women are, after all, quite different. Equal certainly, but different.

I certainly don't subscribe to the view that Paul (or Peter) was misogynistic.
Take a look at the many references to women in this passage. The respect and love he holds for women is very evident there.
This passage emphasises mutual love and respect between husband and wife.
I think the notion of submission in the latter, and other, passages is mischaracterised today as opression, something which would certainly be abhorrent to Christianity.

Excelsior

John, when you say it isn't the word of "my" God, you have to remember that Christians believe God actually exists. That he is a personality, a being, a selfhood. He is not (we believe etc...) a psychological projection. We did not make him, he made us. And so if we disagree with him, or want to fight with him, in a way it reinforces our faith because if we wanted to make something up to justify our existence, he wouldn't cause us all these pesky problems.

But I do think your initial reading, you will be glad to hear, is faulty. I have written here about this before:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50514352&postcount=19

I don't know if that convinces you BM, but it is how I read those texts, informed primarily by the position of DA Carson. More from that thread here.

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

I don't know if that convinces you BM, but it is how I read those texts, informed primarily by the position of DA Carson..

Thanks for the links. I'll mull over them later when I have more time.
As I said above, I haven't given this issue much thought before, so I'm certainly interested in different interpretations (and open to persuasion).
I downloaded some Carson mp3's a while back (e.g. 1, 2, 3) but forgot about them (actually too lazy); I must make an effort to listen to them (not sure if there are any available that deal specifically with this issue).

John Doe

You're right Excelsior, this is one of the points at which I diverge totally from Christianity. I think anything with the power to create the universe would be so alien to us that attributing a selfhood or personality to it would be a bit strange. But then, I suppose as a Christian the fact that words are attributed directly to God and to Jesus in the Bible would mean that he is a personality, being and a selfhood. I wouldn't say I think God is a psychological projection but that I think he/it wouldn't be a being that we could kinda reference in this way. I've gone off the point now. I'll try and collect my thoughts and get back to this. Please regard this post as a work-in-progress.

John Doe

Right. I've decided my previous post was a directionless ramble. I get your point about God not necessarily being everything one wants him to be. I wouldn't necessarily say though that just because he might be everything one wants him to be he must be merely a psychological projection any more than a God that isn't. Maybe God's just everything positive in the universe. Past that, it's merely a down to subjectively interpreting what is positive. Just because I'm the one doing it doesn't mean I'm wrong or right, but I might as well take my opinion on it as anyone else's. Maybe that means my God is just a psychological projection. I'm not sure, though.

Excelsior

The Christian doctrine of God holds that he is the source of everything positive in the universe but that positivity is not subjective. It is objectively defined by him. How'd ya like dem apples?

BrianCalgary

John Doe wrote:

But then, I suppose as a Christian the fact that words are attributed directly to God and to Jesus in the Bible would mean that he is a personality, being and a selfhood. .

Right on with this. We can know God because He has revealed Himself to us through the scripture. Without Him doing this I don't think that we as humans could conceive of His greatness and eternal being.

Other gods are made by man to suit their own purposes. A friend of mine once commented that Mormonism was started by a bunch of dirty old men who wanted to legally boink the maid. They then created their own god that would allow this. The god was based on the God of the Christian bible because Joseph Smith was quite well versed in Christianity.

John Doe

BrianCalgary wrote:

A friend of mine once commented that Mormonism was started by a bunch of dirty old men who wanted to legally boink the maid.

Heehee. I don't know anything about Mormonism so no comment! Those apples, Excelsior, are a little hard to swallow but do make perfect sense. I suppose my problem comes down, once again, to believing the Bible. I don't and can't. I can empathise with it in some places but would never have faith in it if it didn't reinforce my own moral code. Y'know, for a while I was just an atheist cos it annoyed people. That wasn't healthy, but I was young(er) and foolish. Now I see that I actually can't have faith, even though I want to. I think I'll try a rigourous regime of prayer/meditation to see if I can change that. Or maybe not, I'm happy enough as it is.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I think that Paul would disagree with you. To pick one example, see this quote from Paul's letter to Timothy:

Quote:
2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

...which is a straightforward justification of the oppression of women. Using creationism as the motive reason, I might add.

Robin sees it clear, interpreting the text in its plain meaning. He also sees the essential nature of the doctrine of creationism to this ethical demand.

I don't agree that Paul's delineation of a separate and submissive role for women represents oppression, however. Men and women are one - both are 'man' created in God's image. But God made 'man' both male and female and gave separate roles to each. Adam was made first, then Eve to be his companion, his soul-mate.

The non-oppressive nature of the husband/wife leader/led relationship is supremely illustrated by its direct connection to the relationship between Christ and His Church:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

The compliment to submission for the wife and the Church is loving leadership, not oppression.

As Robin rightly points out, this is not some local context, a 'just for that city' or 'just for that generation' thing, but is clearly universal in location and time since it is based on how things were meant to be from the beginning. This is further emphasised by referencing it to the eternal relationship between Christ and the Church - if a wife's role is not submissive to the husband, then neither is the Church required to submit to Christ.

The commands then for women not to exercise leadership over men in the Church are similarly still in force - though many churches have caved in to the current opinions of the world. Just as with creationism and evolution, the biblical role for women has been set aside for feminism.