Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@jetson.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 11 May 91 03:16:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 127 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl colossal Henning) writes: > David H. Wagner writes: >>I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible >>is verbally inspired by God. That means it says what God wants it to say, >>albeit in the words of a number of different human authors. So Paul's >>words, for me, are God's Words. Otherwise we have to start picking and >>choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I >>don't. > > It seems to me that you must still make comparable distinctions > from among mutually non-corobborative scriptural texts, but that > you place this decision-making process at a different level. > You could say that I made my choice when I decided to accept the Bible as verbally inspired. I suppose I could summarize this decision by saying that I personally found the Bible highly consistent, true, and good. I cannot constrain you to the same belief but I might ask you to give it a try. >>You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible >>with Paul's teachings. I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men >>or choosing them as apostles. At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly >>put his mother in her place. > > Did you mean that last sentence to be quite as chauvinistic as it > seems (to me, at least)? This is what he said: "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time is not yet come." --John 2:4 Jesus' mother had come to him, apparently asking him to do something using his power as the Son of God, to do something about the lack of wine. Jesus gently, but quite distinctly, tells her that it is not for her to order his ministry about; he is not at her beck and call to perform miracles where she may think they are needed. He calls her 'dear woman' rather than 'mother' to indicate that she should not expect special treatment from him simply because he is her son. Yet he still loves her as a son and complies with her request. This is all I mean by 'quite distinctly putting her in her place.' >>> What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither >>> Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. > >>Our moderator has already answered this one (which always comes up): men and >>women have equal status before God, they have equal value, and are equally >>saved by Christ. This does not mean that their God-pleasing roles cannot >>be different. Paul also wrote, "We have different gifts, according to the >>grace given us..." > > BUT -- the text to which you're responding makes a strong case > for equality between the sexes; the text you bring up does not > specifically address the issue of sex. Your text provides for > a tolerant multiplicity, but does NOT even SUGGEST sexual hierarchy. That comes from other verses, which I presumed (perhaps in error) that my readers were familiar with. Notably 1 Cor 11:3-16, 1 Cor 14: 33-35, 1 Tim 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3: 1-7, Ephesians 5: 22-33, and others that I might find with a little more work. > But what if that creation story is not entirely (strictly speaking) > historical? What if it's allegorical? What if it's just a yarn? > Your "eternal principle ... based on the facts of ... God's creation", > which stems from Paul's interpretation, could be very shaky indeed. Well, there I think we simply have two different religions. >>The clearest application one can make of this principle is that a wife >>should submit to her husband: 'wives, submit to your husbands, as to >>the Lord,... husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, etc.' > To what man should a woman who is not a wife submit herself? > Or doesn't this metaphor strike you as particularly grounded > in the notion that a woman is socially insignificant, except > insofar as she's attached to a man? Is the servant-master > relationship traditionally asserted for a wife and husband > REALLY the logical and eternal reflection of the relationship > between man and christ? The church is frequently pictured in Scripture as the Bride of Christ. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians applies this image in reverse. The question you ask regarding unmarried women is interesting, but I'm not sure it is a helpful one. I had said that it was clear from Scripture that a wife should submit to her husband. I made no direct application to single women. I certainly would not suggest that a single woman submit to a man who is not her husband in the same way that a wife is to submit to her husband. The marriage relationship is a very special and unique relationship. It is a 'one flesh' relationship where 'they are no longer two but one.' Scripture indicates clearly that the head of that unit, the family, is the husband. Paul indicates clearly in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is well for men and women to remain unmarried in order to devote their full attention to the Lord, and the work of His kingdom. Those who cannot control their sexual desires, however, should get married. He clearly indicates that either the married or single conditions are equally valid and acceptable before God. We are after all, justified before God by grace alone, through faith, and not on account of our marriage or lack thereof. > Just how many unmarried women could function in Paul's society? > In colonial Salem, was it mere coincidence that the women accused > of witchery were generally unmarried or widowed women, in possession > of farms or estates which certain of their neighbors felt "ought" > to be in the hands of men? Do you suppose that it is mere accident > that most people accused of witchcraft are women, or does one write > this off as mere social malcontentment with god's ordained order? The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts were definitely not a part of the Lutheran heritage that I have adopted, and I don't feel obliged to defend them. > In the late 20th century, to just what extent does a woman have to be > married in order to be taken seriously, or to feel secure? The real question is, to what extent does a woman have to have a job and make a lot of money to be taken seriously, or considered successful? Who speaks up for the stay-at-home mothers? And how can we possibly hire people to do all the work that mothers used to do? David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran Have a blessed Mother's Day! (oops! don't forget! Today is Ascenscion Day!) My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.