Sexism

[RBLibertarian]

.

 

[Willtor]

This comes up quite a lot in this forum (and in denominational-specific forums). There are three main schools of thought regarding these passages:

1. Disregard these passages as being the product of another time and place. The first century A.D. in the Roman Empire _was_ what we would consider sexist. In fact, there are a number of things you will read in early Church Fathers, regarding women, that will make you shudder. But it can hardly be associated with the gospel. The "Good News" is not that women are inferior to men. Therefore, Paul was making a point about orderliness in the Church that fit that context but does not fit this one. Slavery is condoned in many passages in the Bible, but today we see it as the hand of God moving in the world that condemns slavery. In fact, the seeds of that anti-slavery mentality are easily enough found in the Bible. Likewise, the roles of women in the Church and in society are increased by the hand of God, even though there are these passages that may shock you with their apparent callousness.

2. The passages are prescriptive for the Church today no less than when they were written. Although women are equal to men and God does not differentiate in an eternal sense, roles within the Church are different. _Why_ God commands these distinct roles differs from denomination to denomination or from individual to individual. Some reasons you will think are more sexist than others. In the more sexist category, women are more easily deceived than men and should be kept out of positions of authority where they will do damage. In the less sexist category, male and female are symbolic in critical ways within the functioning of the Church; i.e., many women are perfectly capable to fill these positions, but they are not permitted because of the high place of symbolism within the Church.

3. There is historical context that makes the passages read very differently from what your intuition would lead you to understand. There is some limited biblical evidence that suggests this, even if it doesn't provide a better reading of the passages. E.g., Paul indicates how women should prophesy (with their heads covered) in the assembly -- which doesn't jive well with the command that they should be silent. In the I Tim. passage, too, you have cited Paul's line of reasoning that doesn't make sense without some outside context. Archaeological and anthropological discoveries suggest, for example, that in Ephesus there was a contingent in the Church that taught that Eve was created before Adam, and that for that reason men should not be in authority, and, in fact, bishops installed by apostles had been removed in favor of women bishops. These teachings were based on the cult of Artemis which was influential in that city.

 

[Melethiel]

Willtor made a good summary, but I'll just share my point of view: yes, some of it is cultural, making a point about order in the church. For example, in the letter to the Corinthians, women were likely shouting questions to their husbands across the church (since men and women traditionally stood on opposite ends of the room) and disturbing the service.

On the other hand, men and women ARE different. Although they are equal in terms of salvation (as Paul writes in Galatians), they have different roles. One way to look at it is this - in a marriage, the man is to symbolize Christ, and the woman is to symbolize the Church. Does the Church lord it over Christ teach Christ what to do?

Finally, "through childbearing"...I'll have to look at the Greek for this one to make sure, but "through" does not have to mean "because of", rather it can mean, quite simply, "through". If Eve's curse was to have pain in childbearing, then women will be brought through that curse to the other side.

Oh, so are some of the most famous lady preachers supposed to "stay silent"?

Yes. That is not to say that women can't evangelize (they can and should), but they are not called to the office of pastor. Again, because of symbolism. If the pastor is to represent Christ to the Church, how can a woman do that? (And I've never heard any good women preachers...)

 

[wayseer]

Hi all, I was reading the Bible and came across a number of disturbing verses

Keep reading and you will come across many more.

You have to accept that the world has consistently lived within a patriarchy - men have held power over women. Even now there is still something called the glass ceiling.

So it was not only Paul but any number of otherwise supposedly enlightened men in the 21st century who still treat women as second class citizens or worst. The really sad thing is that the Bible is quoted to support the continuing injustice.

 

[MrPolo]

Where do I start? First off I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the Qu'ran.

God did not ordain women to the hierarchical priesthood. The hierarchical ministry involves the priest to act "in the person of" Christ, and Christ came incarnate as a male.

Also, if God ordained women to have specific gifts that do not include authoritative teaching over the male clergy, that does not make God "sexist." It does not make God "sexist" to create only women with the ability to bear children either. It is only modernism that cites any claim of "non-sameness" as discrimination of some kind. But then modernism is its own product of its own time too.

 

[wayseer]

But then modernism is its own product of its own time too.

Cannot the same be said for Paul - that he was likewise a 'product of his own time'?

 

[MrPolo]

Cannot the same be said for Paul - that he was likewise a 'product of his own time'?

Yes, and no. I think we must understand the ancient authors in accord with their own theology, but I don't think we dismiss certain ordinations in Scripture based on that as if they mean nothing to us today. Either Scripture is also divinely inspired or not. I think it's key to have an authoritative interpreter just like the eunuch who asked Phillip to explain Scripture to him.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

God did not ordain women to the hierarchical priesthood. The hierarchical ministry involves the priest to act "in the person of" Christ, and Christ came incarnate as a male.

Also, if God ordained women to have specific gifts that do not include authoritative teaching over the male clergy, that does not make God "sexist." It does not make God "sexist" to create only women with the ability to bear children either. It is only modernism that cites any claim of "non-sameness" as discrimination of some kind. But then modernism is its own product of its own time too.

True, only men can preach from the pulpit. God did not give that authority to women. And while women and men have equal dignity they have differing authorities and roles. Man is head of the woman because Adam was created first and Eve was the first to sin. Eve's desire is for her husband, and he will rule over her(Genesis 3:16). She was never created as a standalone person, but as a helpmeet for Adam.. Hence because Eve had greater culpability to sin and to cause others to sin(Satan went for Eve not Adam because he knew she was more easily-led and acted out more on passion), Adam was put in authority over her to help guide and protect her. Eve tried to teach Adam to partake in the fruit of disobediance and thus woefully failed. Thus let women be content in silence, piousness, not to usurp authority, and modesty.

 

[wayseer]

Yes, and no. I think we must understand the ancient authors in accord with their own theology, but I don't think we dismiss certain ordinations in Scripture based on that as if they mean nothing to us today.

Why not? We don't go around stoning witches. We don't burn rotting beef, hair and all, on the barbecue as an atonement for sin. We don't treat women as cattle.

Either Scripture is also divinely inspired or not.

Yes, but in what way are the texts 'divinely inspired'?

I think it's key to have an authoritative interpreter just like the eunuch who asked Phillip to explain Scripture to him.

We have universities which serve the same purpose.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Peter said 2 things, both to believers

1) that if the men were not obedient to the word, then wives should subject themselves to them to win them w/o a word

1 Pet 3:1


2) that to dwell according to knowledge was to give honor in that men and women were heirs together

1 Peter 3:7


Sounds pretty straight forward to me.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Hi all, I was reading the Bible and came across a number of disturbing verses:

1 Timothy 2:12:
Where do I start? First off I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the Qu'ran. <snip>

You call yourself a Baptist and talk like this? This is hyperbole I hope. Tee hee, I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the Koran, gufaw, tee hee.

 

[BrotherBob]

Galatians 3:28 is a interesting scripture:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[MrPolo]

We don't burn rotting beef, hair and all, on the barbecue as an atonement for sin.

Yes, but the Old Covenant ordinances find their fulfillment and meaning in the New Testament. They aren't just jettisoned as without meaning. They have typological significance.

Yes, but in what way are the texts 'divinely inspired'?

The shortest answer is that the text communicates God message to man when properly understood.

We have universities which serve the same purpose.

University profs. do not have authority above the Church to interpret Scripture.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

You call yourself a Baptist and talk like this? This is hyperbole I hope. Tee hee, I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the Koran, gufaw, tee hee.

he is only 17 and probably has been indoctrinated by a large amount of western values which is drenched in modern feminism, I wouldn't try to be mean to him about it..

 

[SummaScriptura]

he is only 17 and probably has been indoctrinated by a large amount of western values which is drenched in modern feminism, I wouldn't try to be mean to him about it..

Oops! Sorry! I was 17 once. Sometimes I get a little overboard. Again, apologies to the OP for the sarcasm on my part.

 

[RBLibertarian]

Culture has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is right and wrong. Culture is simply your dress code, cuisine, language, accent, and manors. Saying "well that was the culture then" is simply a cop out. Take Mexican culture, and Australian culture. Both are very different, but both people know that killing someone is flat out wrong. Both people know that slaving someone is flat out wrong. As you can see, someone's culture and time does NOT invalidate what is right and wrong.

Thus let women be content in silence, piousness, not to usurp authority, and modesty.

Answer this hypothetical question, if you were changed to the female gender, would you want to be "content in silence, piousness, not to usurp authority, and modesty"? Try looking threw someone else's eyes Mr.Sexist. How would you like to be "content in silence"? You know just as well I as I do, you wouldn't.

 

[Melethiel]

Culture has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is right and wrong. Culture is simply your dress code, cuisine, language, accent, and manors. Saying "well that was the culture then" is simply a cop out. Take Mexican culture, and Australian culture. Both are very different, but both people know that killing someone is flat out wrong. Both people know that slaving someone is flat out wrong. As you can see, someone's culture and time does NOT invalidate what is right and wrong.

Answer this hypothetical question, if you were changed to the female gender, would you want to be "content in silence, piousness, not to usurp authority, and modesty"? Try looking threw someone else's eyes Mr.Sexist. How would you like to be "content in silence"? You know just as well I as I do, you wouldn't.

Last I checked, I'm a woman.

Since Paul is saying that woman should not attempt to usurp the authority of the pastor/priest, I'm perfectly fine with what Paul wrote. I don't put Western culture above the Bible. I guess that makes me a sexist against my own kind, though Why can't people understand that though men and women are equal in terms of salvation, they are not identical, and have different roles in life?

 

[Willtor]

Culture has absolutely NOTHING to do with what is right and wrong. Culture is simply your dress code, cuisine, language, accent, and manors. Saying "well that was the culture then" is simply a cop out. Take Mexican culture, and Australian culture. Both are very different, but both people know that killing someone is flat out wrong. Both people know that slaving someone is flat out wrong. As you can see, someone's culture and time does NOT invalidate what is right and wrong.

Answer this hypothetical question, if you were changed to the female gender, would you want to be "content in silence, piousness, not to usurp authority, and modesty"? Try looking threw someone else's eyes Mr.Sexist. How would you like to be "content in silence"? You know just as well I as I do, you wouldn't.

Don't overstate your case.

I mean, my wife is a pastor, so you know where I stand. But as I indicated in my first response, I don't think all people who understand this to mean that women should not fulfill certain roles in the church are sexist. I used to think women shouldn't be in certain positions. But inasmuch as my interpretation of the passages in question have changed, my views on women, as a gender, have not. I don't think I was a sexist then, and I don't think I am, now.

 

[Lulav]

1 Corinthians 14:34:

The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
​

I'd be interested in knowing what 'law' Paul is talking about here.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Last I checked, I'm a woman.

Since Paul is saying that woman should not attempt to usurp the authority of the pastor/priest, I'm perfectly fine with what Paul wrote. I don't put Western culture above the Bible. I guess that makes me a sexist against my own kind, though Why can't people understand that though men and women are equal in terms of salvation, they are not identical, and have different roles in life?

The whole nation rejected God by wanting a king over them. That didn't make it right.


1 Samuel 8:6-8
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.


If you think that giving up an inheritance is a small thing for a bowl of pottage think again. It truly disgusts me how people turn their backs on God.

The fact that there wasn't a Levitical priesthood according to God but there was as far as man was concerned doesn't seem to register in anyone's mind. At the time that God said to Samuel He was placing a Nazirite (as in men and women that He had lost at the calf worship) back in place. But the people lost direct contact with God again.
Jesus comes in again to set the captives free and ya'll line up to be slaves again....ya'll are still under law....there is no grace

Faulty foundations are still sand no matter what.

I seriously have no patience for a women that stands to defend the theft of birthright against those who stand for truth. later.