Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Sexism in the church?? Message-ID: Date: 6 Apr 91 07:45:36 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: None. Terminally sloppy. Lines: 123 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) says: > >In JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy >Haftel) writes: > >In saying that the men rule over the women is part of Eve's punishment, >I believe he is implying that it is not part of God's original plan of >how men and women are supposed to interact. Not part of the original plan, no. But it is his plan for the fallen world. And we live in a fallen world, although we are redeemed. We still have the sinful nature, we are just no longer slaves to it. >>I Timothy 2:11-15 >>"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not >> a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in >> silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, >> but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding >> she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity >> and holiness with sobriety." Just as a note, I've heard a really interesting interpretation of the last sentence, where "childbearing" was made out to be Mary's bearing Jesus, who saves us all. >This passage must be considered in light of the prevailing cultural >standards of the first century. To apply it out of context to men >and women today is simply foolish. Paul may have been under the special >guidance of the Holy Spirit (as were all the biblical authors), but that >does not make him (or his writings) immune from the prejudices of his day. However, when Paul wrote it, he did not say "this is from me, not the LORD" as he did when writing about marriage in I Corinthians. He also refers to a principle he got from the story of the fall to make his statement, not a reason like "well, the men simply won't stand for it and I just don't like the idea so much myself." >I believe the meaning of this passage for men and women today is that >we have all sinned and none of us is fit to lord authority over another. >Rather, we must all carry out the responsibilities and duties of our >station in life with humility and charity. I think if it'd meant "men and women" it would have said "men and women." This passage is pretty clear that it means just women. (I get creative with interpretations of some Biblical passages, too, but I try to avoid interpreting direct doctrine in other senses than literal, because doctrine is straightforward by nature) >Paul writes, "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave >or freeman." Clearly this passage is more central to Christian living >than the one above. It's startling how Christians sometimes twist the >New Testament, ignoring important passages and raising insignificant >ones to the status of the 10 Commandments. I don't think it is that simple. I think people sometimes explain away parts of the Bible they don't *like* as being "cultural" or "insignificant." If the Bible is "given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," it is all significant. I've heard arguments say that I Timothy is not definitely written by Paul, that the passage was cultural, etc. I don't buy it. I think the Bible was inspired by God, and God would make sure it teaches us accurately. I am able to go fairly far on that, but I find I seriously disagree with these passages. What I would like to see is someone to defend them, not try to refute them with personal experiences or ration- ize away the text. I would be *very* happy to see a refutation of what I *think* the passage is saying by using the text itself, not discounting it. (that seems circular; I hope I got it out right). Joy Haftel "Experience, though no authority..." JKH107@PSUVM --The Wife of Bath (Chaucer) [OK, let me try. I think people are trying to get answers from Paul to questions that he never asked. That is, we're looking for blanket statements that women are inferior to men or equal to them. But I don't think those are quite the right terms in which to put the question. On the one side, Paul acknowledges female leaders as colleagues (Rom 16:1, as well as many other women listed in lists of colleagues in various letters). He gives rules for females when they pray and prophecy in church (I Cor 11:5), which implies that they do pray and prophecy in church. Finally, the general principle is clear, that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28). On the other hand, it's also clear that Paul does not simply see men and women as indistinguishable. The husband is the head of the marriage (I Cor 11:3). Women are to have their heads covered in acknowledgement of their particular position while praying in public. (I Cor 11). The most obvious reading of 1 Cor 11 would seem to be that women can speak, but that covering their head is necessary as an acknowledgement that their leadership is not intended to challenge the headship of the husband. Finally, we have passages that include a prohibition of women teaching or speaking. These are I Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12. It is possible to attack each of these passages, though I'm not sure whether I find the attacks convincing. Some scholars consider I Cor 14:34-35 to be a later addition to the text, because it appears in two different places in the manuscripts. 1 Tim 2:12 can be translated using "wife" and "husband" rather than woman and man, since the same Greek word is used for both. This may even be a sensible resolution, if you believe the suggestion I made above that the point of I Cor 11 is not to restrict women's participation in the church, but to make sure that it is always done in such a way as to acknowledge their particular role, particular in marriage. 1 Tim 2:12 would then be talking about a wife's submission to her husband, and the fact that no wife should be put in a position of leadership over her husband, not a general submission of women to men. This interpretation would be particularly likely if you take 1 Tim 3:11 to be referring to female deacons. (Again, it depends upon whether we translate "women" or "wives".) There is also the point that many people consider Tim to have been written by someone other than Paul, and to reflect conditions as the organization of the church was moving closer to a "Catholic" style. If you accept I Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12, then we seem to have some cases where women speak and are leaders and some where they are not. In such a situation, it's no wonder that interpreters attempt to come up with explanations for why the passages are responses to specific situation. As you probably know, it's common to suggest that I Cor 14 is due to some specific situation where women were being disorderly. The way it following on 1 Cor 14:33 could certainly lend some support to that idea. --clh]