Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl Stephanie Henning) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 13 May 91 07:58:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: SUNY Buffalo Lines: 163 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu David H. Wagner writes: >Karl colossal Henning writes: >> 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. Two different viewpoints, I should say rather; minor nit, except that some people erroneously assert that, for example, the lack of religion somehow comprises a species of religion. Also, would you therefore maintain that the xianity as other subscribers to this newsgroup practice it, who maintain a different viewpoint, are therefore practicing a different religion? >The question you ask regarding unmarried women is interesting, but I'm not >sure it is a helpful one. Well, when I ask a question in order to further discussion, I can't say that whether a question is "helpful" or not figures much into the equation. >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. No indeed, but this biblical institutionalization (woof, what a /word/ :-) of sexual inequality is used to assert a sort of social order -- a sort of fractal notion of, wives are inferior to their husbands in the home, therefore the husbands are the ones who have the authority to treat with the community, &c. Well, what about women who don't have a husband to whom they are biblically obliged to submit? Mrs Amphitheatre thinks (for example) that her daughter ought to be allowed into a woodworking class in school, and that her son ought to be allowed into a home economics class -- if the two children happen to want to do these peculiarly sexually non-stereotyped things. Now, Mr Amphitheatre things that sexual stereotype is a good thing, perhaps -- at any rate, he disagrees with his wife ... and since Mr Amphitheatre is lord over the Mrs, it is his opinion which Mrs Amphitheatre raises at the PTA meeting. Let's say Miss Biopsy has a daughter; let's say the child's father died in an unusual and unexpected military police action in Iraq before having the opportunity to make Miss Biopsy an "honest woman", and that there is no opportunity for Miss Biopsy the mother to submit herself to what the bible would indicate is "the proper authority". At the PTA meeting, Miss Biopsy expresses her opinion that girls ought to be allowed into the woodworking class. Let's say the PTA meeting adjourns without having resolved the question. Over the course of the next few months, Miss Biopsy and Mr Chortle become immensely fond of one another, and decide for a number of quaintly anachronistic reasons to "tie the knot". Miss Biopsy decides to keep her maiden name, but chooses to go by Mrs Biopsy, even though traditional form of address is "Mrs [husband's name here]" -- Mr Chortle has no problem with this, and accords his new bride full biblical sanction for the deviant nomenclature. However, Mr Chortle can't abide girls working with lathes and vises, at any price ... and Mrs Biopsy is made to understand that she must recant her former position, and stop petitioning the PTA on the matter of her duaghter taking woodworking. Mr Chortle stops short of absolutely requiring his wife to address the PTA specifically /against/ her former position, but she realizes that her biblical place is to forswear what she thinks is right, because her husband bears the divine stamp of wisdom and authority. Is this what /should/ happen, according to the biblical model? Doesn't this do violence to Mrs Biopsy's personal integrity? The resemblance of the above people to any characters living, dead, or freeze-dried is purely coincidental. >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. Any relationship (including marriage) is the interaction of two individuals. Where honest differences of opinion arise between those two individuals, it is mere caprice to give preference to the male of the species -- and the lamest of reasons to offer "that's what god says". >> 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. I wasn't asking you to defend the historical example, particularly; I'm a little disappointed that you elected not to consider my question, simply because they weren't "your folks". Does your response imply that your fellow xians who are, say, Roman Catholic are obliged to defend any possible mistakes to which their "heritage" may have been susceptible historically? >> 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? Part of my purpose in exploring this question, has been to try to point out patriarchal sexual biases which many people seem to swallow whole with the bible. Who speaks up for the husbands who can't find work with wages sufficient to support a family? Who speaks up for the women who /want/ to work, because they have talents and ambitions beyond (or in addition to) serving as mere breeders? Who speaks up for the stay-at-home fathers? Who speaks up for the people who choose to re-examine the family unit outside of traditional religious viewpoint? Who speaks up for the people who do not fit into the traditional mold of one-woman- serving-as-helpmeet-to-one-man? For the people who want to live within the biblical model of marriage ... well, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Not everyone should be made to; and the people who choose otherwise should not be accused of wilful neglect of god's clear and unambiguous revelation amen. kph -- "The study of crime begins with the knowledge of oneself. All that you despise, all that you loathe, all that you reject, all that you condemn and seek to convert by punishment springs from you." -- Henry Miller