Is this kind of "Christian" feminism ok or am i in error?

[Junia]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue



Now i was on a page on FB about gender roles and biblical womanhood and was told i was being a feminist and in rebellion towards God for holdig some of these views? particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told. re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings. she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin. she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single. she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery


I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

(disclaimer, i am not married and have no intention of looking for anyone at moment. children not an option so this is academic debate, not seeking advice. just curious)

 

[Emsmom1]

Everything you wrote seems reasonable to me; why did others disagree? Did they give reasons other than claiming you are in rebellion toward God (I don't agree with that and don't feel you have to believe them)?

 

[Oldmantook]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue



Now i was on a page on FB about gender roles and biblical womanhood and was told i was being a feminist and in rebellion towards God for holdig some of these views? particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told. re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings. she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin. she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single. she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery


I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

(disclaimer, i am not married and have no intention of looking for anyone at moment. children not an option so this is academic debate, not seeking advice. just curious)

Mostly agree except for head covering issue. Paul based his reasoning on no head covering for the man and a head covering for the woman based on the order of God's creation and the glory it reflects or covers, which is universal and timeless in its scope and application. Not time and culturally bound.

 

[ralliann]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue



Now i was on a page on FB about gender roles and biblical womanhood and was told i was being a feminist and in rebellion towards God for holdig some of these views? particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told. re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings. she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin. she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single. she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery


I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

(disclaimer, i am not married and have no intention of looking for anyone at moment. children not an option so this is academic debate, not seeking advice. just curious)

What does your Church say?

 

[Junia]

Everything you wrote seems reasonable to me; why did others disagree? Did they give reasons other than claiming you are in rebellion toward God (I don't agree with that and don't feel you have to believe them)?

Thanks. i hope i don't have to believe them. they run a website called The Transformed Wife and out of curiosity I went on it.

I told them I am not ready fro marriage yet due to healing from an abusive childhood and adulthood and in recovery for addiction and mental health related things. I was told that women who are single should go back live with family rather than working or getting a college degree and wait until marriage. i said that am childfree, i have no interest in children of my own and i have physical health issues which mean am in pain most of time and was told having children is mandatory and i lack faith.

in regards to women voting she says women are to stay at home and also ifwomen di dvote they are likely to vote for liberal candidate. she is from the US- i am British so don't really "get" this whole liberal vs republican thing. maybe to do with abortion being allowed by liberals?

her name is Lori Alexander. she says vaccines are evil, so are public schools, taking pills is wrong, homeopathy only is acceptable etc i think her opinions are based more on personal convictions than scripture as scripture does not deal with vaccines, family planning and medication etc

the other lady is very extreme generally. goes to a church denomination called IFB but sure i know much baout them. she is very hyper modest and never exposes any skin except her face, she says if aman lusts because of us showing skin, we go to hell and so does he. she says we are responsible if we leave an abusive husband and he remarries or fornicates..... says we have to suffer for Jesus. Lori Alexander also believes similar- that only beatings are real abuse and she gave an aexample of a lady who asked for her help whose husband called her fat and rationed her food . her answer was that the lady should be suffering for Jesus?

 

[Junia]

What does your Church say?

they agree with my own views. they a pretty solid church and very Biblical so i guess i should go with that. am not interested in ahving children anyway and marriage i can take or leave it. am not ready for mariage anyway, need healing from my past first and am seeing a therapist. i d think my church's worldview being more kind is more like Jesus' character. i see Jesus as someone very concerned about our wellbeing and personal growth.

 

[Junia]

Mostly agree except for head covering issue. Paul based his reasoning on no head covering for the man and a head covering for the woman based on the order of God's creation and the glory it reflects or covers, which is universal and timeless in its scope and application. Not time and culturally bound.

That is interesting. so wives should cover their heads today in church when they pray or prophesy? i must admit i have wondered about that. 40 years ago hats on married ladies used to be popular in British churches- i rarely see them now except at weddings

 

[JackRT]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue



Now i was on a page on FB about gender roles and biblical womanhood and was told i was being a feminist and in rebellion towards God for holdig some of these views? particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told. re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings. she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin. she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single. she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery


I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

(disclaimer, i am not married and have no intention of looking for anyone at moment. children not an option so this is academic debate, not seeking advice. just curious)

I think that to be entirely reasonable but, for myself, I am a male Christian feminist who regards that as just a good start:

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

 

[Radagast]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist.

Nothing on your list sounds like "feminism." I know plenty of conservative Christian women who believe those things.

 

[Junia]

Nothing on your list sounds like "feminism." I know plenty of conservative Christian women who believe those things.

oh that's good. phew.

 

[Duke of Stratford]

I agree with you, and I don’t consider myself a feminist, either.

I think I’ve heard of Lori Alexander before. There are some women who hold a very traditional view of marriage and femininity, and that’s fine, but they’re being very legalistic when they force it on other women. Though I think there is a model for Biblical femininity, it doesn’t have to manifest in that traditionalist way. Submission to one’s husband doesn’t mean being a doormat. Femininity doesn’t mean a 1950s American housewife. And vaccinate your kids.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that “feminist” is a word that can mean a LOT of things. It’s both a social concept and a sociopolitical movement. There are different definitions of what constitutes feminism or not. Some might say all the things you listed are feminist ideas, some might not. The whole thing is tricky to navigate.

But yeah, don’t let them use their personal convictions to drag you down.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As someone who has for most of his life identified as a feminist/pro-feminist, I've never seen anything at odds between Christianity and feminism. That is, feminism defined as the position that women should not be discriminated on the basis of being women, and that women are completely equal with men and deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as men are in society. Do some self-proclaimed feminists say things which I find morally problematic? Of course, but then I am of the position that sexism against men isn't feminist, it's anti-feminist. Misogyny isn't addressed by misandry; any more than misandry is addressed by misogyny.

I firmly believe that Scripture, read rightly, supports a position of equality in the Church and in the home. That is, women are equal members of the Body as men. We even see female deacons mentioned in Scripture (specifically St. Phoebe the Deacon), as well as female apostles (St. Junia the Apostle), and Paul expects that women even preach. Indeed, female preachers are known in antiquity, such as St. Thecla and St. Felicity of Rome.

The only real question is whether women can serve as presbyters and bishops, i.e. as pastors. And different churches have come to different positions on that topic.

So, then, since I believe already in the total equality of women with men in the Church and in the home (where husband and wife are equally committed to one another as servants, in imitation of Christ and His love, Ephesians 5:20-33). Indeed, it is relevant that Ephesians 5:22 in many manuscripts lacks a verb, and therefore inherits its verb from the proceeding verse "submit to one another". This call to mutual submission is the header upon which what follows is to be understood: wives submitting to their husbands, husbands submitting to their wives; and it doesn't end here in Ephesians 5, the Apostle continues this topic in chapter 6, where he speaks of children honoring their parents, and parents honoring their children; of slaves serving their masters and masters in the same way serving their slaves.

What this portion of Ephesians does is invite us to understand ourselves as servants to one another in imitation of Jesus Christ. None of us is to see ourselves as the head, as the one on top, as lords or rulers or masters; but that each of us in every area of life in every relationship is called to be the slave of Jesus Christ and the servant to others. It is in keeping with how Christ Himself lived toward us, by laying down His life, who though actually being the Lord of Heaven and Earth, does not exploit His Divine Majesty, but was humble, taking on the form of a slave, as St. Paul says in Philippians 2. It is in keeping with the Lord's own words, that the slave is the greatest in the kingdom of God.

The call of Christ to Christian discipleship is the call to come and die. To throw ourselves away in love, to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow the Crucified and Risen Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sketcher]

i admit i have never liked the term feminist. i am against abortion on demand, and i do believe christian wives and mothers have a certain role to fulfil which is different from a man's role, that of bringing up their children, being under her husband's protection (some say authority, but i think that may be what it means) but i am leaning towards feminism in these ways:


- a single woman can have a career or do anything she pleases as long as it is God's will. marriage and children are for some, not others, same as with men.

- i have no issue with women being allowed to leave an abusive husband. (i think men should be able to do that too if their wife is abusive) As far as i understand, it is remarriage after divorcing for reasons other than adultery which the Word does not approve of.


- i support women's rights in regard to protecting victims of doemstic abuse, sexual abuse, rape etc i see no issue in supporting an awareness campaign or charity to help women in these situations even if feminism was the movement which started many of them

- women can vote. nothing in Word seems to forbid it- i have checked!

- women can work. be keepers at home is Paul's advice for the wives and mothers and most women were wives and mothers then, hence that is why there is little mention of women as single or career women. but nothing forbids a woman being a career woman if she has no children

-whether a wife has her own bank account or money is surely between her and her husband- i see no rules in the Bible forbidding it though i think most couples share what they have whcih is fine.

- a husband's authority is protecting the wife- submission isnt about husband dominating, but husbands and wives working together as a team

- a wife can refuse her husband sex if she is feeling unwell or in pain or exhausted. obviously not good to use witholding sex selfishly or because angry at husband.

- how many children a couple have is between them and the Lord. same with how they plan their family, space it etc. only abortion seems to be forbidden in the Word maybe that includes some abortificent birth control pills, but i see nothing about natural fmaily planning, sterilisation etc.... so these must be personal things for each couple to put before God

- head covering is optional as the context in which it was given is not applicable today again, if the Lord wants a woman to cover when praying or prophesyng in church or for modesty reasons, up to her and the Lord. i dont feel i need to, but others may feel different.

- bathing costumes and mixed bathing are ok as long as costume doesnt show too much. if it does, put t shirt on, no issue

I generally agree with most of this.

particularly on the issue of marriage or childbearing as they are mandatory, i was told.

No, they're not.

re; divorce she says emotional abuse doesnt count, only severe beatings.

Emotional abuse is a massive gray area. It usually will not put your life in danger. When your life and safety becomes endangered, I can see divorce as justifiable. "Husband is being a jerk" isn't.

she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

I agree that such women shouldn't get married.

a friend of mine, also on FB (facebook, sorry) says mixed bathing is a sin.

I can see that it would be a stumbling block for some people, for modesty reasons. In which case, don't go to the beach or the pool party or whatever so you can avoid your stumbling block.

she also says being a keeper at home means a woman cannot have hobbies outside home or work unless she single.

Is that due to the time demands of keeping the home and raising children, or for other reasons?

she says you cannot divorce your husband if he harms you, because then he may remarry and be found guilty of adultery

If he does, it's his fault. Just like if a woman remarries after a divorce, she would be guilty of adultery.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That is interesting. so wives should cover their heads today in church when they pray or prophesy? i must admit i have wondered about that. 40 years ago hats on married ladies used to be popular in British churches- i rarely see them now except at weddings

Folks omit the other half of the verse... "Because of the angels... probably because they don't understand it.

I believe it is a symbol of being in right relation to authority so as not to hinder the ministry of angels. Being out of sorts with ones spouse will hinder the prayer of both the wife and the husband.

In the Greek the words are to have a 'symbol of authority on your head'.

This then is a cultural symbol signifying a wife in right relationship.

So the matter of attitude is the real issue here, not the cultural symbol of the time that indicated it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Folks omit the other half of the verse... "Because of the angels... probably because they don't understand it.

I believe is it is a symbol of being in right relation to authority so as not to hinder the ministry of angels. Being out of sorts with ones spouse will hinder the prayer of both the woman and the man.

The Greek words are to have a 'symbol of authority on your head'.

This then is a cultural symbol signifying a wife in right relationship.

So the matter of attitude is the real issue here, not the cultural symbol of the time that indicated it.

I suspect the most likely explanation for Paul's strange statement here is that it's an allusion to the story of the angels falling in the books of Enoch. If one were to take the statement at completely face value and a proscription for how women should wear their hair, it would appear St. Paul is saying women should cover their hair so as to not distract and attract the attention of the angels. I'm inclined to think that while this is Paul's allusion, this isn't Paul's point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oldmantook]

That is interesting. so wives should cover their heads today in church when they pray or prophesy? i must admit i have wondered about that. 40 years ago hats on married ladies used to be popular in British churches- i rarely see them now except at weddings

I believe should be the case. It used to be, but no longer is. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul specifically wrote that his basis for requiring head coverings is the order of creation which is timeless and universal in scope. The head of the man who is praying/prophesying requires that it be uncovered since his head reflects the image/glory of God (v.7). Therefore to cover his head would be to cover up the image and glory of God - which should always be paramount and made manifest. God's glory is never to be put under a cover. However, women are to cover their heads since the woman is the glory of man. When the church composed of men and women gather to pray and prophesy, God's glory is made manifest when the men leave their heads uncovered while the women do the opposite and cover their head since the woman reflects the glory of man (v.7). In the hierarchical scheme of creation, man's glory is always subordinate to God's glory when the church gathers to pray and prophesy. This also serves as a witness and reminder to the angels (v.10). For the woman however, her long hair is her glory (v.15). That is why she is to wear a head covering since her glory must be covered up. V.15 is a contentious verse as some interpret this verse as the basis for claiming that a woman's long hair is her covering. The verse reads:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering."

The word "for" in this verse is from the Greek "anti' which means in exchange for or instead of, in place of. Thus I believe the verse should read:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her instead of a covering."

Again, since long hair is a woman's glory, she is to wear a head covering to cover up her glory while praying/prophesying in the congregation. The man on the other hand, his head remains uncovered while praying/prophesying in the congregation since his head reflects the glory of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

she also says singleness is wrong for women. i told her what f we asexual/ have low sex drive? just not interested in males? not ready? she has blocked me.

Both men and women have lived out their lives in celibacy since the beginnings of the Church. From the beginning, both marriage and celibacy have been recognized as equally valid vocations of life in the Church. Widows who remained celibate after the passing of their husbands were often some of the most important people in the churches. We even have a book of the New Testament (most likely) written to one of these women, 2 John,

"The presbyter to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth, because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever:" - 2 John 1:1-2

Given the content of the epistle, the elect lady is most likely an important widow whose house was used as the local meeting place for the Faithful, that is, it was the church building. This is something that was common in the early centuries of Christianity. When we read that early Christians met in homes, it would be wrong to think that this is just some kind of home Bible study; instead these are most likely the larger homes of wealthier members, usually older widows who had control over the estates of their late husbands. Indeed, the earliest churches discovered were precisely this, villas and large homes which had been intentionally repurposed to function as churches, with a built in baptismal font, and a dedicated place for assembled worship.

That is to say, celibate women were not only recognized in the early Church, but were highly regarded and well-respected. Many women in the early Church swore themselves to celibacy and chastity, these women were avid preachers, important members of the community, and many are joyously celebrated as precious martyrs who gave their lives and all they had to the kingdom of God. These mighty spiritual mothers of ours are a source of inspiration that we should all seek to emulate, not just women, but men also, all of us. The saints who came before us are the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews ch. 12, those who call us onward with our eyes set upon Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Of course this is not just true of celibate women, but many mighty saints, married and celibate, both men and women, stand before God's throne, cheering us on, and whose memory is blessed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

I suspect the most likely explanation for Paul's strange statement here is that it's an allusion to the story of the angels falling in the books of Enoch.

Thanks! It always sounded to me like Paul had completely run out of coherent arguments and was starting to make up crazy nonsense. The reason women have to wear hats is because of -- angels! that's it, angels! Angels get tangled in their hair, or something...

If Paul is alluding to some folklore about angels that was well-known to his audience, then he might have something meaningful in mind. I'm not eager to accept Enoch as canon, but that gives me something to research, to make sense of what Paul was thinking.

 

[Froggymom101]

Since different Christian sects interpret these issues differently it might be best to ask a minister in your church.

 

[bèlla]

I just struggle to believe the loving Jesus i have come to know would have such narrow views. if these things are true, i cannot find the verses to support them? what do other people think?

You’re struggling because you entertain personal opinions that raise questions and doubts in your heart. You are drawn to (or attract) people who think along these lines. Consider your previous thread. Its the same thing. it is a sin to add to your natural appearance? really? where did God say so?

I think you would be better served with a book or bible study that includes thought provoking questions which allow you to consider the topic without condemnation. Elizabeth George has several for women. Cynthia Heald has a positive demeanor you may appreciate.

As for the site, I’m familiar with it and understand their ethos. There are others of the same stripe I frequented in the past. I mentored women with a similar disposition. I know their mindset.

However, their makeup has many elements which contributes to their surrender and enables them to live out a form of headship that would be less appealing or appropriate for others. If you’ve been blessed with positive examples of masculinity and femininity in your home and observed mutual respect between the sexes. The idea of replicating the same isn’t difficult. If you married someone whose leadership you hold in high regard. It isn’t hard to follow him.

In most cases, women with that background exude qualities very appealing to their complement. They attract men who desire to be caretakers and head of household. Oftentimes, they influence one another. The nuances of her personality may reflect elements he prefers or emphasizes. Pliability is a mainstay of these connections. Pleasing him brings them joy.

Most Christian women aren’t wired that way. There’s nothing wrong with you. Some women thrive in service-driven relationships and the rest need a different flavor. Its fine to read different viewpoints. But if the message isn’t edifying or challenging you positively. You may want to rethink it and focus on more profitable pursuits.

~Bella