Christianity and its stance on women.

V

VirtuousValkyrie

A Seeker
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Ohio
This is my first post, so I would like to say hello! Secondly, I would like to say I am a Christian, but I am very liberal in my views. One thing that has always bothered me was the conserative Christian's stance on women. They say that women need to be submissive to men. But this is SO contradictory! They cite scripture such as 1 Timothy 2:11&12 (this says women shouldnt teach or have authority over men). So if we are to take that literally, what about 1 Corinthians 11:5, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head- it is though her head is shaved"?? No church I know of requires women to cover their heads while they pray. "Well," the conseratives say, "you need to take that Corinthians verse in context of the times." Well ok then, how about taking the Timothy one in context on the times? See back in those days if Christianity said women did not need to be submissive to men in that culture then they would have never gained converts because it was a patriarchial world. How can this not explain why Paul told women that could not have church leadership positions??? You can NOT take one verse literally and then take another verse "in context"!!!! You are just promoting your OWN agenda and NOT God's!

Also, does Galatians 3:28 not say, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, for all are on in Christ". So what does this do to the "men over women" stance??? Does it not destory it? If there is no male OR female, how can one be submissive the other?? Also, these verses were written and said by PAUL not Christ nor God. Even in 1 Corinthians Paul says, "I say this (about it being good for a man not to marry) as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am" (1 Cor. 7:6).

What are others thoughts on my views here? I welcome any input!!
 
Hi and welcome

I agree with everything you have said. Have you done any reading in feminist theology?
 
Hi VirtuousValkyrie, and welcome to CR. :)

And, yes - I always wondered why the head covering aspect was lost. Seemed to drop out of fashion in Europe during the Middle Ages, actually. Funny how no one has been back to revisit it.
 
Hi VV--I'm fairly new here too! I'm just returning to my Christian roots, and I'm also liberal in my views. It'd be nice to see the Christian forum get busier.

I like all that you said in your original post. I do wonder what is was like for those early Christian women getting this mixed message, if the version of Christ's teaching they heard included Paul's letters. I have no idea what early early Christian life was like. Maybe because of the conditions of the time it was not a turn-off to women of the first and second centuries. But, if today we did not have a choice in churches (that somehow strict adherance to the conservative view held sway) and could not choose a church where women participate and can even be clergy, then what would Christianity and the world look like today? I think Elizabeth Cady Stanton went so far as to rewrite her bible! Religious thinking and human rights go hand in hand.

lunamoth
 
Man vs. Woman vs. Child of God...

VirtuousValkyrie said:
You can NOT take one verse literally and then take another verse "in context
Click to expand...

I agree. And I think that this is one of the stickiest issues that Christians need to deal with-- and I do believe that we need to deal with it, and not avoid it in the way that you've pointed out people sometimes do by picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Here's something that I think might be helpful. It's from the first chapter of the Bible: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

I think there is a difference between "man" as a creature and "male and female" as adjectives describing that creature. Unfortunately, in English we kind of lump all of them together, thereby creating two illogical statements:
1. All men are males
2. No men are females
Illogical, of course, if you think about what these words might signify in light of that verse from Genesis.

Here's something else that I just found while writing this post, from John 15:
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and whithers..."

Why doesn't Jesus say, "If a man does not remain in me..."? Or why doesn't he say, "If anyone remains in me and I in him..."? Could it be because he is making a crucial distinction between men and non-men? If a person remains in Christ, then isn't that person assuming the image of Christ, because Christ is bigger than us? And if we take the image of Christ for our own, and if Christ is the Son of God and hence the living image of God, then are we not actually assuming the image of God as our own, as it was in the beginning?

Just a thought. I don't think it solves the dilemmas found in the epistles, though. One opinion on 1 Corinthians 11, though: The chapter opens with Paul thanking the Corinthian church for following his teachings. In my Bible there is a note saying that this word can also be translated as "traditions." We all know what God's stance is on human traditions.

Here is an alternative translation for the next part of the chapter, found in my Bible's notes:

"Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair on her head dishonours her head-- she is just like one of the "shorn women." If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair..."

When I read it this way, it seems to make more sense (i.e. That long hair is a sign of authority for women, rather than a covered head is a sign of authority for women).

Paul goes on to tell us to judge for ourselves if it is proper for women to pray to God with her head uncovered. Personally yes, I think women by nature look more "glorious" so to speak with long hair. A personal take: men and women both have pubic hair to cover up their private parts, but women have the added burden of breasts (pardon the pun), which have no such covering except for long hair draped in front of them. Maybe that's why Paul says that long hair is "given to her as a covering."

Or maybe I'm nuts.
 
Marsh said:
Here's something else that I just found while writing this post, from John 15:
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and whithers..."

Why doesn't Jesus say, "If a man does not remain in me..."? Or why doesn't he say, "If anyone remains in me and I in him..."? Could it be because he is making a crucial distinction between men and non-men? If a person remains in Christ, then isn't that person assuming the image of Christ, because Christ is bigger than us? And if we take the image of Christ for our own, and if Christ is the Son of God and hence the living image of God, then are we not actually assuming the image of God as our own, as it was in the beginning?
Click to expand...

One always needs to check out the translation against the original language (which is often less male-oriented than the English). I don't know which translation you cited, but in the KJV it is the second phrase that begins "if a man does not remain in me.."

In any case, the first phrase (If a man remain in me/He that abideth in me) in Greek is 'ho menwn' literally "the one remaining'. It is masculine in gender, but I'm not sure if that necessarily means it must refer to a man.

In the second phrase the word translated as "anyone/man" is a Greek pronoun "tis" which is defined grammatically as an "enclitic indefinite pronoun" and is usually translated as "a certain person"

btw, don't ask me what an "enclitic indefinite pronoun" is. I only know what Strong's Concordance chooses to tell me. I can decipher the Greek alphabet and know a few key words, but I cannot actually read or write the language and I certainly don't understand its nuances.
 
VirtuousValkyrie said:
No I haven't. Do you recommand any good books on the subject?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends a little on how in depth you want to get. Most of the well-known names (Rosemary Radford Reuther, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza) are very academic writers. Sooner or later you will want to read them.

But if you prefer something lighter and simpler to start with, I suggest a small booklet called "Proclaim Jubilee" by Maria Harris.
 
Kindest Regards, Marsh!
Marsh said:
I think there is a difference between "man" as a creature and "male and female" as adjectives describing that creature. Unfortunately, in English we kind of lump all of them together, thereby creating two illogical statements:
1. All men are males
2. No men are females
Click to expand...
If I may insert something that is overlooked in our preoccupation with PC:
According to Euro/Christian patriarchal tradition circa 1611,
3. "Man" is half female.

What you say is true pertaining to the individual, what I just said pertains to the collective whole of mankind, now PC'd into "humanity."

Feminism is fine, until it reaches the point of emasculation.
 
Marsh said:
A personal take: men and women both have pubic hair to cover up their private parts, but women have the added burden of breasts (pardon the pun), which have no such covering except for long hair draped in front of them. Maybe that's why Paul says that long hair is "given to her as a covering."
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. :)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Marsh!If I may insert something that is overlooked in our preoccupation with PC:
According to Euro/Christian patriarchal tradition circa 1611,
3. "Man" is half female.

What you say is true pertaining to the individual, what I just said pertains to the collective whole of mankind, now PC'd into "humanity."

Feminism is fine, until it reaches the point of emasculation.
Click to expand...

Ah, but who is defining "emasculation" and on what criteria?

If the criteria are still patriarchal, are they still valid?

Does the avoidance of emasculation continue to require rendering the female invisible?
 
Kindest Regards, gluadys!
gluadys said:
Ah, but who is defining "emasculation" and on what criteria?
Click to expand...
What would you call "up with estrogen, down with testosterone?"

If the criteria are still patriarchal, are they still valid?
Click to expand...
If the criteria is still the abuse of (apparent) power, is it necessarily patriarchal?

Does the avoidance of emasculation continue to require rendering the female invisible?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But when militant feminism is just as guilty as those it rails at, I am left to wonder...

Perhaps my final comment was misplaced, but it is a natural thought stemming from my "real life" experiences.

My intent was not to open a can of worms, perhaps it is best I keep my mouth shut on this. :D
 
No need for final comments, juantoo3 - "political correctness" is not something demanded from members of this forum. :)

Btw - there is an interesting topic here that I'm opening up in the "Politics and Society" board. :)
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, gluadys!What would you call "up with estrogen, down with testosterone?"
Click to expand...

Creating balance. After all, you cannot raise the lower end of the see-saw without lowering the higher end.

If the criteria is still the abuse of (apparent) power, is it necessarily patriarchal?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that for the last three millennia, the power of patriarchy has only been apparent? Take off the blinkers, please.
 
gluadys said:
Are you saying that for the last three millennia, the power of patriarchy has only been apparent? Take off the blinkers, please.
Click to expand...
You are quite right, that should be: power; real and apparent, and the abuse thereof.

The thing is, power is not gender specific. Both genders are fully capable of abusing the privilege of power.
 
What is the true difference between males and females?

When I first came back to my faith in Jesus (I was one of Jesus' many prodigal sons) it was through a fundamentalist path. One of the things I therefore believed in was that women should not be teachers, pastors, or even speakers in church. Then I got married.

Only after being married did I finally begin to question my belief that there was a certain spiritual inequality between males and females, because only then did I get to see and hear the intimate thoughts of a female soul. They seem a lot like mine.

Forgive me if it seems like I'm hijacking this thread, but I would really like some feedback on this question: Is there such a thing as a female soul and a male soul, or are souls (which are created genderless) conditioned by male and female bodies so as to take on different personalities?
 
Kindest Regards, Marsh!

Allow me to begin by saying it is not you, but me that highjacked the thread. It was not intentional, and the social issues will be carried to Brian's new thread. My apologies.

I don't believe souls are different based on gender. They may be different, but that would be based on individuality or uniqueness.

Long ago I heard a saying, based on the Bible but not a direct quote (please don't ask me to dig out the verses, I've long ago forgotten where they are). It goes something like this:

Where God cannot find a man to sing His praises, He will find a woman. If He cannot find a woman to sing His praises, He will find a child. If He cannot find a child to sing His praises, He will find an animal. If He cannot find an animal to sing His praises, He will make even the rocks cry out.

The Bible contains a great many stories of noble and courageous women, women of thought, cunning, daring and wisdom. From Sarah, the wife of Abraham, and Tamar (?) Judah's daughter-in-law, to Rebecca, and Jacob's other wives, to Zipporah the wife of Moses, Miriam the sister of Moses, Rahab the dealer in purple who saved the Hebrew spies (at Jericho?). One woman whose name escapes me killed an enemy king by driving a tent stake through his skull, saving her people. Ruth, and Esther. And that's just the Old Testament.
What of Miriam (Mary), the mother of Jesus? Or Mary Magdalene. Or Elizabeth, Jesus' aunt. Or the friendship (some say patronage) of Priscilla to Paul.

Yes, there is a certain decorum recommended. It can be guessed as to why. Patriarchy in the social tradition is a very likely argument. But was this to be absolute, or was it because of some social necessity? Who would be minding the children while service was being conducted? I don't know that this is the reason for the decorum, but it is as likely a guess as any.

No, I don't think there is anything that specifically delineates the genders on the spiritual level. As there is no marriage in heaven, one can guess there is no gender to deal with. Which leads me to believe that the souls selected to pass through this life in the female gender are special indeed, if for no other reason than putting up with the obstacles the male gender has put in their way. Besides, they are blessed (most anyway) with a treasure no man can enjoy, that of creating a new life inside them.

No, women are not subordinate, and do not deserve being treated cruelly. It was the same Paul who admonished "husbands, love your wives, even as your own flesh.

Yes, politically, women have traditionally been hampered outside of the home. A man's home is his castle, hah! Look again, if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy! Even Solomon spoke to this in Proverbs.
 
Kindest Regards, Brian!
I said:
No need for final comments, juantoo3 - "political correctness" is not something demanded from members of this forum. :)
Click to expand...
I believe I see the misunderstanding.
"That is (*comma, pause for effect*) the final comment in my first post," referring to the comment: "Feminism is fine, until it reaches the point of emasculation." I promise, there was no attitude attached to what I wrote. 'Nuf said for the moment, anymore to this point really should be taken to the new thread.

And to Gluadys, I sincerely mean nothing personal at all. I am beginning to realize you and I see things very differently philosophically. I think it makes for spirited discussion, but if I am too much of an annoyance, let me know and I will leave you alone.
 
juantoo3 said:
And to Gluadys, I sincerely mean nothing personal at all. I am beginning to realize you and I see things very differently philosophically. I think it makes for spirited discussion, but if I am too much of an annoyance, let me know and I will leave you alone.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it does make for interesting discussion. Otherwise I would not participate.

I once heard a saying that most of us do not see things incorrectly. We see them incompletely. So when a person speaks from another perspective, rather than argue against it as incorrect, we should try to add that perspective to our own---and so enlarge our field of vision.

I hope our differences in thinking contribute to both of us enlarging our field of vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top