Women, know your place

[Joe Guy]

Not being a "Bible person" I will ask, did Jesus explicitly declare that in his "new" religion (Christianity) that women cannot be leaders?

John 14:6.1 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. And while I'm at it, women shall not be-ith leaders as they are secondary to men: but they can be nuns: although technically a man with an older sister who becomes a nun might be considered secondary to nun.

[rubato]

Is that a new rule? Men with older sisters can become nuns now?

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Irrelevance? Please elaborate. Indeed, doesn't the RC church interpret that to mean he must be only married to the church?

Well Big RR I don't worry about how the Roman church chooses to apply its interpretations; I thought even they had moved beyond the allegorical method but it shouldn't a surprise.

"The husband of but one wife" is as clear as day - Paul speaks of a man and how he manages both his personal life (beyond reproach) and his family, including children. He wasn't speaking allegorically but in quite a simple mundane fashion

The broad irrelevance is to interpret "an elder should be the husband of but one wife" to mean an unmarried man - which you put forward. The law of non-contradiction indicates that a man with one wife (or any number of them) cannot be an unmarried man. Especially since he must keep his children in order.....

Likewise, to say that "husband of but one wife" means "a woman" is rather obtuse. You may as well "interpret" that when Paul wrote that elders and deacons should be sober he really meant they should get sloshed at the pub on Saturday nights.

As for interpreting "he" to mean male and female, I wasn't aware ai was doing that; however, a woman cannot have a husband, can she?

You've lost me a bit there. I thought women having husbands fairly common. No the point is you argued that an elder could be intepreted to mean a woman - whereas the entire passage refers to an elder as "he".

You argued that a woman could not have more than one husband. Yet Jesus clearly stated that the Samaritan woman had had five husbands - so she was not the wife of one husband was she?

This helps explains your error in thinking that the "elders" passage refers to polygamy - it doesn't. It refers to divorce. Polygamy in first century Israel was practically unknown and religiously forbidden. Jesus however did not endorse divorce.

When my ideas and your ideas conflict with those of Jesus I'll take his ideas as being relevant and ours as.... er.... not so much.

The point is that whether or not women should or should not be bishops, or can and cannot be bishops the Bible says that bishops/elders/overseers - same word - should be men. So we either believe it or we don't; we either follow it or we don't - but it's not right to pretend it says something other than what it does say.

Meade

[Gob]

I find myself living in an interesting tension. My Christian friends chide me for my overtly feminist views, while the atheist-feminist circles I move in despair at my commitment to what they see as a patriarchal religion.

It would be much easier to choose one or the other; Christianity or feminism, but I believe they should be - and are - utterly compatible.

Empathising with my non-religious feminist community is easy. From an initial glance Christianity does seem overtly male; its language is strongly masculine, using terms like father and son rather than mother and daughter, to describe two thirds of the Trinity.

The key players in the religion are mostly men: the patriarchs, the Jewish priesthood, Jesus, the 12 apostles and St Paul. Their stories are recorded in a sacred canon of texts, the Bible, written down by (you've guessed it) men.

Add to that a few voices from Church history like St Augustine, who once said that "women should not be educated in any way; they should be segregated" and it's not exactly rocket science to grasp why many forward thinking women are initially suspicious of Christianity.

I'll be honest, I have found the dominant male imagery of the Christian story difficult to embrace at times.

The Church has also directed its fair share of criticism toward me for being a woman who is passionate about teaching theology, and for campaigning on issues of gender equality. Suffice it to say, it has not been an easy journey.

So, why do I stay? Because I believe those masculine impressions of Christianity are not, by any means, the full story. When you take a long hard look at the life of Christ, you see a radical revolutionary.

Jesus didn't just overturn the tables in the temple, he overturned the cultural norms of his society and sent them crashing to the ground. The way he related to women was a key part of this.

Women in the Anglican Church


1862: Elizabeth Ferard (pictured) becomes the Church of England's first deaconess of modern times. The role is considered an office of the Church rather than part of the formal ministry
1944: Florence Li-Tim Oi, was ordained the first female Anglican priest in Hong Kong. She voluntarily resigned her orders at the end of WWII
1989: In the US, Barbara Harris is ordained as the first female Anglican bishop
1992: The General Synod vote allows women to become priests in England- eight years after the law is proposed - the first 32 are ordained in 1994
November 2012: The synod rejects women bishops in England after failing to secure a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity

In an era when women were uneducated, not given a legally valid voice, and treated like property, Christ refused to bow to those cultural stigmas.

He talked freely with women to the shock of those watching. He encouraged women to engage in theological study. He also chose to appear to Mary after he rose from the dead, making her the first official witness of the resurrection and the person who delivered the news to the male apostles.

Many of Jesus's followers were female. They were not included in the 12 apostles, but the community surrounding him was far larger than that. Women were also among his key financial supporters, paying the bills for him, his team and their mission.

So, Jesus treated women with dignity, equality and respect. But how about St Paul? Initially he may seem difficult for a feminist to embrace, but a deeper look into his writings suggests this is not the case.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul highly commends Junias, thought by many scholars to have been a female apostle. Paul also penned the powerful statement in Galatians 3:28 that there is "neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus".

Many believe that these words transcend his culture-specific concerns about uneducated women teaching in Church.
Christianity and bra-burning

Even if I can convince my feminist friends that the Christian faith embodies radical equality for women, it is still a hard sell to persuade my Christian friends to embrace the term "feminist".

They ask: "Isn't it a shrill, harsh movement of bra-burning and man hating?" Yes, feminism has been caricatured by the media of the 1960s and is sometimes presented as abrasive and anti-men.

But the real meaning of the term needs to be reclaimed: true feminism is simply a belief in the total equality, dignity and value of women.

Christianity and feminism are often misunderstood by one another; each side needs a PR overhaul to slough off the old stereotypes and see with new eyes. Far from being an oxymoron, the two perspectives are deeply compatible.

I look forward to the day when eyebrows will no longer be raised at that notion, but in order to achieve this the Church must continue to move forwards in living up to the high standard set by Christ himself.

Hopefully he'll continue his work of turning over temple tables in our generation, until women have an equal voice and an equal place inside the doors of his house.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks Gob. I'm in sympathy with most of that. There's no doubt that women can and should fill many church offices - the diaconate is an obviously biblically approved one. I also see no biblical ground to bar a woman from being a pastor (though perhaps someone could show I'm wrong about that). Female pope? Not a problem either. And so on.

I was only pointing out that if bishop = overseer = elder, then the Biblical position is that particular job is for men (married men, with children and not previously divorced - yes, and not polygamous either). Every church and every believer is (obviously) free to ignore that and change a paradigm. I cannot believe that it has any impact whatever on salvation!

My own church here has one female elder (she is also an ordained pastor). I don't refuse to attend when she preaches and we sing/play guitar together in the worship group. I wish she were a stronger woman as in Session she's a bit of a doormat - and there's a couple of other determined ladies I'd rather see in there than some of the men (also doormats).

My church in the USA has only male pastors and elders - and I'm happy with that when I'm there too.

Meade

[Sean]

[Big RR]

the Biblical position is that particular job is for men (married men, with children and not previously divorced - yes, and not polygamous either). Every church and every believer is (obviously) free to ignore that and change a paradigm.

Now you've confused me; if you believe that god wants only married men with a single spouse to be elders, how can every chirch be "free to ingore" that? Either it is a requirement of what god wants in the church, as recorded in the bible god inspired, or it is not. Can one freely ignore things one does not like or care for even if it is the word of god? I don't understand. Perhaps, in your interpretation, iI's limited to the particular church Paul was writing to, much as many limit his dictate that women should remain silent in chuirch (not an actual quote?

[Guinevere]

My own church here has one female elder (she is also an ordained pastor).

Meade

Well then, you clearly belong to a non-Christian "church."

[dales]

<< 1 Timothy 2:12 >>


New International Version (©1984)
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
New Living Translation (©2007)
I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.

English Standard Version (©2001)
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to usurp over a man, but she should be quiet;

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I don't allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.

American King James Version
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

American Standard Version
But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

Darby Bible Translation
but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;

English Revised Version
But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.

Webster's Bible Translation
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Weymouth New Testament
I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent.

World English Bible
But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.

Young's Literal Translation
and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

[dgs49]

Contemporary vernacular translation:

"I don't allow no woman to do no teachin', no how; 'specially not over no MAN. She just be STFU."

[oldr_n_wsr]

OK, I definitely will then; and maybe we won't have hangovers after we die.

But I don't remember ever having a hangover. I might have felt a little out of sorts in teh head, but physically ill the next day was not something I experienced.

When I woke up, I was either still drunk or sobering up feeling wierd but not sick.

Of course I will probbly end up in hell and then I will have hangovers bestowed upon me.

[Andrew D]

Notice something about all eighteen renditions of I Timothy 2:12:

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

"I"

[Rick]

Titus 1:4-9 KJV

To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

[TPFKA@W]

a lover of good men

So homosexuality is ok then. Glad that's settled.

[MajGenl.Meade]

the Biblical position is that particular job is for men (married men, with children and not previously divorced - yes, and not polygamous either). Every church and every believer is (obviously) free to ignore that and change a paradigm.

Now you've confused me; if you believe that god wants only married men with a single spouse to be elders, how can every chirch be "free to ingore" that? Either it is a requirement of what god wants in the church, as recorded in the bible god inspired, or it is not. Can one freely ignore things one does not like or care for even if it is the word of god? I don't understand. Perhaps, in your interpretation, iI's limited to the particular church Paul was writing to, much as many limit his dictate that women should remain silent in chuirch (not an actual quote?

I meant only to recognise reality - do not many churches freely ignore what the Bible says in this and many areas? Denominations which approve of divorce, abortion, adultery, homosexuality etc. are all choosing to ignore clear Biblical teachings on the grounds that they do not "like" them.

To respond to Guin, to that degree my church here is non-biblical and thus "non-Christian" by which I mean non-conforming to classic Christian doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible in matters of the faith and morals. There is and there can be no "perfect" church. Sometimes when our pastor says things like "God is allowing us a choice in X to see what we will do " I have to wince, shudder and remain silent. When I have the pulpit, I deny his words by teaching what the Bible says about things like that but make no reference to him or what he said. The point is not to shame anyone but to teach correct doctrine in love and truth.

TFPKA@W. That's a good illustration though of a weakness in KJV - the word philagathos does not translate to "good men" but to "goodness" as more modern scholarship has recognised - including the New King James which has "a lover of what is good".

[Guinevere]

Well Meade, given your condemnation of the Episcopal Church earlier in the thread, I find your response above disingenuous and/or hypocritical.

[Big RR]

So Meade, are you saying such differences of opinion and dissent within a church are not a problem, or are you saying that ignoring biblical teachings removes the church from what god intended? And if the latter, are you saying this is bad, or that it has no effect on salvation (as you characterized it previously)? Or are you possibly saying that the bible provides us with things we must do/believe and things we should do/believe (and, if you believe this, how do we know which is which?)?

I am all for applying reason to any study of scriptural writings, but then I also know we've come to different conclusions many times. Personally, I think these are immaterial, because I do think that god speaks to and leads each of us toward understanding, but I don't think you usually have that same tolerance of the differences (including, as Guin pointed out, your condemnation of the episcopal church). So I really cannot understand why you would want to be a member of, a church that is (in your own words) "non-biblical and thus "non-Christian" by which I mean non-conforming to classic Christian doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible in matters of the faith and morals".

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well Meade, given your condemnation of the Episcopal Church earlier in the thread, I find your response above disingenuous and/or hypocritical.

I find that grossly unfair. If you please review my post you will surely see that I was joking about the UCC, American Episcopal and "so on".... This is shown by the use of the laughing face icon.

The real Christian church believes in the real word of God inspired by Him and recorded less than two millenia ago. Those who don't believe it are (quite simply) not Christians but something else. It's a free world and there are many non-Christian churches out there to choose from - including UCC, American Episcopal and so on.

At issue is whether the denomination teaches that the Bible is the only authentic inspired and recorded word of God (which encompasses all the teachings of Jesus that can be known of course) and that Jesus is the only way to salvation. If not, then not. Don't blame me. He said it.

However, if you wish to identify the Episcopal Church as not believing that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God and that Jesus is the only way to salvation then that would be interesting.

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, I did not say that ignoring biblical teachings "has no effect on salvation". What I said was that I doubt that the decision of any church to have a woman as an elder means the salvation status of the congregants is threatened by that particular decision. I may be wrong.

A difference of opinion (in my opinion) is over something like (e.g.) infant vs. believer baptism. Again, while biblical support can be argued for both, it appears not to be a very important matter, regardless of how many people get hot under the collar. I see a significant difference between a denomination which upholds the validity and authority of the Bible and yet remains imperfect in some small area and those which dismiss the Bible wholesale whenever it suits them and causes them to endorse a succession of departures from God's word.

Denominations which approve of divorce, abortion, adultery, homosexuality etc. are all choosing to ignore clear Biblical teachings on the grounds that they do not "like" them.

And it would be kind to include the qualifying words "to the extent that" when you quoted my agreement with you that my church here by allowing a female elder is departing from a Biblical position. It is a very far cry from declaring that this issue alone makes any denomination "non-Christian" - a claim that I have never made (even in jest). Should the Presbyterian church go from this little thin end of the wedge to arrive at positions endorsing divorce for convenience, adultery, abortion and homosexuality - murder, lying, Satan worship and so on - I would seriously consider revising my membership. Besides, they speak English and that's not so easy to find around these parts.

Meade

Meade

[dgs49]

Among many things that could be mentioned here, I believe there is a statement from the late J.C. - I believe it was in the famous upper room - where he says that he will send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church (presumably after he left).

I couldn't find the exact passage.

But is that true or not? If so, then wouldn't it seem that there is ONE church (however that might be defined) that has it RIGHT, because it has been guided by the Holy Spirit? And the disagreement among the many "Christian" churches about some fairly fundamental articles of faith MUST indicate that ALL BUT ONE of them (and possibly all) are full of beans?