Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 4 Jun 91 03:26:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 104 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Re: David H. Wagner In article , math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes, in response to my article: >> One of the main topic of debate is, in fact, whether the >> Scripture quotations in question (i.e. the ones you cite about >> woman submission to man) is proper to the 1st century or not. >One reason for believing that Paul's instructions. regarding the submission >of women in marriage and in the church, apply to us today, is that he bases >his reasoning on the circumstances of the creation and fall. In only one >case that I know of, 1 Cor 11, he uses 'the order of creation' to uphold >a local custom, the covering of women's heads. Hi, David! I begin to understand why we're running 'round and 'round with this topic; you are more literal in your interpretation of Scripture than I am. Please understand: as a Catholic (and in my own private view), I do not take the Creation account of Genesis literally. I *can't* take it literally, as there are too many glaring contradictions present in that Book. In that manner, I do not necessarily believe that the manifestation of original sin was brought about by the literal plucking of an apple off of a tree, nor do I put credence in the idea that since woman "was the first to fall", she ought to be subservient to man (nor does the Vatican put credence in the idea of woman submission). >The slavery issue is a bit of a straw man. No, I don't advocate or like >slavery. It is not clear to me, however, that if we had slavery, that >it would be more God-pleasing for me to expend my energies trying to >abolish it rather than spreading the gospel. ?!? Forgive me, but I've rarely read anything more startling on the .net!! If one is to follow Jesus, one must IMPLEMENT the Gospel in one's life, IN ADDITION TO spreading that Gospel. This is made abundantly clear in almost *every* book of the Christian New Testament: "'You Pharisees! You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but within you are filled with rapaciousness and evil. Fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside, too? [...] Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes on mint and rue and all the garden plants, while neglecting justice and the love of God. These are the things you should practice, without omitting the others.'" (Luke 11:39-42) "My brothers, what good is it to profess faith without practicing it? Such faith has no power to save one, has it? [...] Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that without works faith is idle? [...] Be assured, then, that faith without works is as dead as a body without breath." (James 2:14-26) "If I speak with human tongues and angelic as well, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophesy and, with full knowledge, comprehend all mysteries, if I have faith enough to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:1-2) > Given a vote for or against >slavery, I would certainly vote against it (I hope!) >But Paul's choice in this matter is clear. He preached the gospel, and I >think one of the beneficial side effects is that we don't practice slavery >any more. It is doubtful that the removal of slavery was due to any actions of Paul... especially since Paul *didn't* condemn slavery outright (but instead gave guidelines for slaves, implying to readers that he did not disapprove of the practice enough to wish it abolished). Rather, the writings of Paul may have *discouraged* the abolition of slavery, as, doubtlessly, ignorant people quoted Paul in their defense of slavery (when asked to reconcile slavery with Christianity). >Paul's (and Peter's) instruction that slaves should submit to their masters, >however still has application to us today. Christians should submit to their >employers. Being a good employee is a form of Christian witness, much as >a good and faithful slave was a good witness for Christ in Paul's day. Pardon, but this is a mighty leap from a small idea. There is a tremendous difference between slaves and employees that you are downplaying, here... namely, that the slaves do not have the OPTION to refuse service with impunity; employees, while risking loss of pay, have every opportunity to pick up and leave when they wish. To say that both slave and employee can be good followers of Christ is utterly beside the point. Mugging victims can also be good witnesses to Christ by enduring their pain with forgiveness and faith, but this in no way lessens the tragedy of being a mugging victim. Likewise with being a slave; the fact that one can persevere in such straits does not make slavery any less abhorrent. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu