Christianity and its stance on women.

VirtuousValkyrie · 04-28-2004, 02:19 AM

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!!

gluadys · 04-28-2004, 06:53 AM

Hi and welcome

I agree with everything you have said. Have you done any reading in feminist theology?

I, Brian · 04-28-2004, 08:36 AM

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.

VirtuousValkyrie · 04-28-2004, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gluadys

Hi and welcome

I agree with everything you have said. Have you done any reading in feminist theology?

No I haven't. Do you recommand any good books on the subject?

lunamoth · 04-29-2004, 05:33 AM

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

Marsh · 04-30-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtuousValkyrie

You can NOT take one verse literally and then take another verse "in context

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.

gluadys · 05-01-2004, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

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?

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.

gluadys · 05-01-2004, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtuousValkyrie

No I haven't. Do you recommand any good books on the subject?

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.

juantoo3 · 05-01-2004, 06:23 AM

Kindest Regards, Marsh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

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

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.

I, Brian · 05-01-2004, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marsh

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."

Interesting thought.

gluadys · 05-01-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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.

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?

juantoo3 · 05-02-2004, 04:10 AM

Kindest Regards, gluadys!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gluadys

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

What would you call "up with estrogen, down with testosterone?"

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Does the avoidance of emasculation continue to require rendering the female invisible?

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.

juantoo3 · 05-02-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

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

That is, the final comment in my first post.

I, Brian · 05-02-2004, 09:08 AM

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.

gluadys · 05-02-2004, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, gluadys!What would you call "up with estrogen, down with testosterone?"

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

Quote:

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

Are you saying that for the last three millennia, the power of patriarchy has only been apparent? Take off the blinkers, please.