J.B.Katz said:
Porteroso said:
Interesting article, probably an interesting book. Many denominations teach women should submit to the authority of men. If you don't know about that you haven't been paying attention.
The idea of a woman in the Bible is interesting, women having contributed either next to nothing, or nothing, to the text. Entirely from a man's point of view. It's not surprising that women are often taught that they have less of a role in the church than men. Certainly it was like that in both old and new testaments.
It is a rather newfangled thing that society is striving for actual equality. It has happened before in a few places, but never on this scale. Given the role of women in the Bible, and most religions, not surprising.
Appreciate your actually dealing with the subject of this article.
This is a religion and politics board and I had hoped for a substantive discussion than didn't immediately descend into bashing women or crude jokes about gender uncertainty, which maybe afflicts 2 percent of the population, some of whom are born with both male and female features. Those poor kids face enough of a challenge w/out *******s implying they're freaks for a developmental abnormality they can't help. How that kind of nastiness and filth comes from the mouth of anyone who purports to love Christ is a mystery to me.
Christianity was radical at the time it began because women did take leadership roles. Subsequent teachings, especially after the Catholic church became the established power in Christendom, and possibly the selection of books to include in the biblical canon diminished that role, but it's clear from the book of Acts and some epistles.
There are also two creation stories, one much older than the other. The older story has males and females created at the same time and doesn't imply that women are relegated to a companion or helpmate role. The first story says God created people and that they were the last thing he created. The second says God create man first then everything else and then a woman. Ppl whose faith is hinged on Biblical inerrancy are thus foiled in the first two chapters of Genesis.
I started grad school at a time when women were still new to professional schools that didn't involve nursing or teaching-they only made up a 4th of law students and fewer business students and still had lesser job prospects (although not as bad as Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law and netted only a marriage proposal from William Rehnquist, who was first in the class, and couldn't get a job except as a legal secretary). My children can't imagine a time when women weren't admitted to colleges and graduate programs in equal numbers. Evangelicals are fighting an uphill battle on the role of women in society. They've also made the same mistake as the Catholics by disregarding reports of domestic abuse or rape or blaming women b/c the power dynamic made that possible. If Barr's book doesn't spark a discussion and examination of how evangelical churches treat women--and from this thread, it looks like it won't, at least among hard-liner men--at least it can serve as a beacon to women that they shouldn't and don't have to tolerate that treatment.
Great comments. It's difficult to have an adult conversation about anything around here.
I think slow progress is being made among evangelicals on this issue. Less than a hundred years ago, women weren't even allowed to read the Women's Missionary Union report at the Southern Baptist Convention, even though women were the backbone of the SBC's mission work.
An interesting thought I read recently about Gen. 2 is that maybe Adam is created gender neutral. Why would he have a ***** is there was no woman?
Another thought on the Gen. 1 text is not only are male and female created at the same time, both are created in God's image. This suggests that there's both male and female in God.
Another thought to throw in: In the gospel texts, Jesus treats women with far more respect than the rabbis of the day. He allowed women to sit at his feet and learn, which others didn't allow, It appears women were also his primary financial supporters.
Also, in the gospels, women are the first witnesses to the resurrection. In fact, one of the proofs offered for the veracity of the resurrection accounts is that women have this role. If this were made up, men would have been the witnesses because the witness of women were considered to have been of no account.
As for Paul's injunctions, he was largely following the rules of the day. Even the pagan cultural assumption was that women would submit to men. Even in the passage in which he justifies female silence in church, he cites the fall narrative, but then backs off a bit.
Also, interestingly, he bans women from speaking in church, but allows them to prophesy (preach?) if they wear a head covering.
Beth Moore's recent reexamination of her own teachings and her rebellion against Trump may signal that evangelical women are moving away from "complementarianism" which really is "male authoritarianism" by another name. But I think for some time, these women will continue to affirm male authority while ignoring it practically.
Maybe we should grant each other the grace and freedom to interpret the scriptures on this disputable matter as they feel led, rather than pronounce anathemas against those who interpret them differently from us.
