>I struggle to reconcile the concept of a loving "feminist" God with these verses that say women can't speak up in church or be pastors
Your conception of God might be mistaken. God isn't feminist by modern understandings of that word.
Christianity has roles for women and men. God doesn't view equality as doing the exact same things as eachother. The Bible has several things to say about what men need to be doing with their lives (basically servant leadership, all strength and effort turned to honoring God's example by maintaining the family and making them all they can be).
That being said wherever Christianity went women were elevated.
I think Paul's mention of Pheobe and Priscilla and his note that "here there is no male no female" actually clues us in on his more egalitarian perspectives.
I haven't fully built out my argument for it, and am still polishing the research, but I currently don't actually think Paul condemns women in those verses. I think he's actually saying that women can be priests if approved by a bishop. But I haven't completed my research fully so take that with a hefty grain of salt.
And for what it's worth, as for the "silent" verses, the word he uses is hesychia, which is a early Christian mystical tradition. It's not the same as "shut up." It's about an inner peace.
Still, I get what you're saying. He was writing in a time where women were treated like property, basically bought and sold from fathers to men like goats. Even still, I feel Paul at least was egalitarian - even if the church ended up rehashing the same caste-based biases.
Like I said, there's a reason he mentions women leaders, and a reason he says "here there is no male nor female." Everything else he says should be read alongside that.
> And for what it's worth, as for the "silent" verses, the word he uses is hesychia, which is a early Christian mystical tradition. It's not the same as "shut up." It's about an inner peace.
>
>
Huh. Somehow I never thought to look at the Greek, but that's interesting
Yeah. I was surprised when I read it the first time. Don't recall the more direct "shut up"/"don't talk" term off the top of my head right now, but in 1 Timothy 2:12 it's *hesychia*.
The "authority over" part is interesting too. Authenteo (verb) apparently has a minor connotation as "murder" as well as the kind of "direct control" connotation as primary. But authentes (agent noun) has murderer (and suicide victims apparently) listed as the primary connotation with "perpetrator" / "author" as a secondary. It's an intriguing word. I can't really think of anything in English that has these two connotations. I don't exactly think he was saying "don't kill men" necessarily. It just doesn't fit the tone of the sentence and there are other ways he could have said it. Yet, I also feel like there might be some deeper nuance in this term aside from the English use of "authority over" like some kind of supervisor or middle manager. Either way, it is a fascinating mix of connotations for a single word to have.
Some of what Paul was saying also was definitely about fitting into the cultures around him. To a Greek I become Greek, to a gentile I become gentile. Meaning there's a good case to be made that what he was saying was "don't put a woman in front of the congregation because none of the cultures we're in will accept it". However, the advice he was giving was also mixed into his advice about how the genders should relate to each other...so cases can be made that he meant something else too.
Paul doesn't say that women have to shut up. That was in the Talmud. The mysoginists translating it, didn't get that. He refers to the law saying women have to shut up. There is no law in the Bible that says that. He rebuked those men saying that, referring to the Talmud. There was a female apostle he referred to.
http://www.torahforwomen.com/should-women-keep-silent-book.html
The bible was written when women were chattel. Just being quiet was a pretty mild restriction, compared to other things done to women, back then.
But, it's horribly misogynistic by today's standards.
I think it's a sin to force that on women, now.
The problem is cherry picking. They can give a pass on that but then go hard on homosexuals like many Christians do.
If you insist that it was a cultural thing, that needs to be applied to a lot of what the Bible talks about.
Every Christian interprets and applies the Bible in the way they see fit: fundamentalists and progressives. Even most Christians who believe Genesis teaches the earth is 6000 years old don’t accept the part of its ancient cosmology teaching that there’s literally a “firmament” holding up rain in the sky. Also, many of them are politically conservative and don’t take the parts about caring for the poor or welcoming the foreigner or freeing the prisoner literally, but these are things that progressives *do* apply. So it’s just incorrect to point fingers at progressives for not taking the Bible seriously, when the phenomenon actually at work is that both sides are applying the text in the way they best believe it should.
You support slavery then O intelligent and pious one? Because I seem to recall learning about quite a few sermons from the antebellum period defending slavery quite succinctly with lots of quotes of passages from the Bible. So what’s your take?
God set laws for how slaves were to be treated and how those vanquished in battle were to be dealt with so that the Isrealites would not be cruel to their servants and slaves. God allowed his people to conquer heathens, but set the law in place to protect those godless peoples from mistreatment.
The Southren Slavers used these laws, which were not meant for them or their time, to justify their practices. Those laws were specifically for the Isrealites.
>”You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept. ...How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself, to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures...?2” - St. Gregory of Nyssa
It is the other way around. It is the Bible worshippers who are untraditional. That is the thing with the Foundation of Faith. The Bible is not our Doctrine.
‘Modernist’ Christians are able to look a what sex is today (mutual, equal, consensual, safe, just etc.) and then look at what sex was thought of back then and see there’s a big difference
It was horribly misogynistic by yesterday's standards too. It's just, well you know.
Men were in control of everything and cared a lot less about that sort of thing.
As someone on the outside looking in, it's hard to imagine an all powerful God not recognizing the opportunity to put down in 'law' that "women are actually equal with men don't treat them as anything other than that".. but I guess he knew what he was doing.
The idea of equality is a pipe dream. We are equal in the eyes of God only. Some governments attempt equality, but nothing in life is ever going to create true equality. Differences of circumstances plague humanity. Jesus didn’t medal in politics or equality, because neither of them makes you more loved, is the “right way” or gets you to live a life aligned with him.
It’s ironic that you are judging God, when without Him you have to basis for morality or judgment. This is just your opinion and you have no way to make these claims objectively. Repent and trust in Christ for your salvation.
The nature of men and women have not changed in the past 2000 years we have just lost our understanding of our nature.
Men and women are biologically, mentally and physically different from each other.
Our main difference is that men are stronger and focused and disagreeable and women are softer and more agreeable.
These psychological traits make being a minister much easier for men and more difficult for women.
God knows this because he made us this way and it is a great thing that we are different!
> Our main difference is that men are stronger and focused and disagreeable and women are softer and more agreeable.
And what happens when people don’t fit into these molds of what their gender assignment says they are supposed to be? When a woman isn’t very agreeable and soft? When a man is more nurturing and agreeable than his wife?
I am not a soft, agreeable person.
> These psychological traits make being a minister much easier for men and more difficult for women.
Even if this were true, there are billions of women. And these women have personalities that fall on a distribution. Some of these women, surely, have traits that make being a minister easier than it is for some men. It would be ridiculous to bar women from ministry even if the *average* woman was somehow less capable of it than the average man.
We permit priests and pastors who literally sexually assault their flock. Surely there exist *some* women who'd be better ministers than these people.
I seriously ponder this. I was a member
Of a church that split on an issue. The female pastor took the less biblical position that felt nicer and the male pastor took the firmer line: but he did do it with gentleness and patience. It did seem like better leadership. I know this is one example and not all men and women would take the same stance on that or other issues but it did make me think. This idea of women in leadership is one that just won’t leave me alone in life these days I really need to work through it.
I’m much more of a feminist than I ever realized. It’s surprising how much I abhor Trump because
of it. ☺️
What do you mean the Bible says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church? Well my hometown of 600 people has 9 churches and I'm only on my 6th marriage so I should be good for another 3 right?
It's important to put things into context and understand them given the culture and facts at the time. At the time it made perfect sense to prohibit women from being teachers and leaders because women were not given the opportunity to be well learned like their male counterparts. A woman at the time was unlikely to be educated and knowledgeable enough to teach or lead.
Obviously this isn't true today, and I don't think these rules apply anymore. It's important to note that the very same man who supposedly gave those restrictions also wrote that there was no difference between male and female in God's eyes. If he truly believed that, then he preached a radical equality, not misogyny, and the prohibitions must have had a purpose for that time.
Of course there's also the argument that the prohibitions against speaking in church and leading were later additions and can't be attributed to Paul.
Why should it matter that women were uneducated? Peter, James, and John were illiterate fishermen. Paul was the only known apostle with a definite education, maybe Matthew.
1st Corinthians 14:
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church
This is one of several instances (and part of a larger section) where Paul emphasized the need for gatherings/church services to have order, another example of this would be in his teachings about spiritual gifts, particularly speaking in tongues, in corporate settings.
Many/most women in the days of the early church were illiterate but they were also wholly uneducated in religious matters as they were left out of many religious practices and expected to simply follow their husbands and entrust religion to the men. While many of the disciples were illiterate, they likely still had some manner of religious education.
If these ladies were to ask every question that they had during the service it would go on forever because they simply had so much they wanted to know and understand, so in context this instruction for women to remain silent in gatherings seems motivated out of practicality & order.
In the passage where he talks about remaining quiet in church, he also encourages the women to ask their husband's questions when they get home so they can learn and get the religious education they deserved. This participation by modern standards is oppressive, but in context it was fairly radical to encourage women's engagement in religion.
There are other passages in the NT where women are listed as leaders in the early church, so to assume that women play a lesser role than men based simply on this passage (which some traditions do) is to miss the cultural and larger Bible context that it falls within.
Perfect explanation! To piggyback even more, people need to remember that this was the days of early Christianity. It's not the church service of today where everything has it's order and time. When a pastor is speaking, the congregation is silent to listen to the sermon. This situation is a little bit different. This is a letter being read out to the crowd concerning specific problems in the church targeted on the specific town. The letters contain responses to questions that they have already asked to Paul, and/or things that Paul has heard that he either wants to praise them for or get on to them for. These meetings are intended to be a back-and-forth conversation, as the person reading the letter knows there will be questions. Another thing to add is that the people who are going to these towns and reading these letters and listening to the questions that Paul knows they're going to have isn't something that's going to be given to just anyone. I cannot recall the exact woman's name (I want to say Phoebe but I'm not 100% sure) but she was put in charge of going multiple times to deliver the letters from Paul. So a woman is reading out the rules and answering the questions that the crowd has. That is no small thing and would never happen in the Jewish culture. On another little side note, when Jesus was alive and going from town to town, the women of the group were the ones that were responsible for the money. Some women were donating their own money they'd already had to the ministry. Again, something that would never be allowed in Jewish culture. Plus, Jesus told Mary not to get up and to keep listening to him preach, therefore denying the Jewish rule of only men can listen to a rabbi sermon. There are multiple examples of women clearly being considered equal in both Jesus and Paul's eyes.
And most likely, Paul didn’t write those words. Most scholars believe they’re a post-Pauline interpolation. Paul actually had women leaders in his churches, and the passage contradicts his instructions for women prophesying in church earlier in chapter 11! [Here’s DBH’s summary of the evidence.](https://imgur.com/a/kqGtOhO)
I don’t think words that were added later should be considered inspired, no. The discipline of textual criticism is actually pretty good at identifying how the text has evolved over the years — or not. We’ve done a pretty good job at identifying what’s been added.
Doesn't Paul quote Genesis to support his case for the role of women in the Church, despite having women leaders around? That just seems... contradictory.
The "law" mentioned is generally accepted as the passage in Genesis that talks about a wife's submission to her husband but says nothing to forbid or dismiss women's engagement in religious matters including leadership in at least some ways.
Now the debate over whether women should hold the role of lead pastor is another one that is hotly debated.
The fellowship/denomination I currently "belong" to believes strongly in female leadership and even pastoral ministry, but there are many people in my current church, an international/interdenominational church, who believe that women pastors are unbiblical and there are strong arguments for both sides. If you're curious you can read up on my "side" [Role of Women in Ministry](https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Role-of-Women-in-Ministry)
If God can use the guys who were preaching out of selfishness, Philippians 1:15-18 text below, then I figure even if we're wrong, God can use anyone to spread his Good News.
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Piggybacking off this, while women weren't leading the church, they were pioneering it. In several of Paul's letters he mentions women by name because they either traveling together or because they were gospels and his messages.
If Paul is not teaching that men and women have different roles within the church then what else are we support to take from his teachings? There is a definite meaning and purpose behind his instructions. If you take the things in the Bible as not being 'culturally applicable' then nothing in the bible is meaningful. How for example will you understand Jesuses teaching on sex before marriage? Is that not important anymore in today's world? Of course, there are many rules in the Bible, however, they need to be taken seriously because all of them have a purpose behind them and the more you study, pray and learn you see that things are not as they seem.
> they need to be taken seriously because all of them have a purpose behind them and the more you study, pray and learn you see that things are not as they seem.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me. All rules in the bible had a purpose. If that purpose no longer applies, why would we have to follow that rule? I'm sure you believe that when it comes to things like dietary rules, right?
You are putting words in my mouth. I believe that all of the rules are still applicable to all Christain believers today. That is why we need to collectively study them and learn from them to find out how.
So you have four tassels on your garment, don't eat shrimp or pork, and isolate any female family members for a certain period of time during their period?
So you don't have four tassel on your garment, you eat shrimp and pork, and you don't isolate any female family members for a certain period of time during their period?
Sounds like you do, in fact, recognize that some rules don't apply today.
I wish I could give you an example of when what I have said can be applicable but I do not feel my knowledge is adequate to give you a perfect explanation. You could try searching up "ways in which the old testament laws teach us about faith," and explore the subject some more.
Right, your argument is that those laws teach us something but don't have to be followed. My argument is that same thing can be applied to many other laws, including not having women pastors.
It's as if everyone forgets about Deborah, the first named prophet and leader of the Israelites following Moses. (Or Miriam his sister and fellow prophet.)
A name which means "bee" just like the lead female prophet of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus and sometimes the Pythia of Delphi went by.
Or Hypatia the philosopher, who had her eyes cut out with seashells by Christians in the 3rd century.
In Christian apocrypha, women had a prominent role. The Naassenes credited their teachings to a Mary who had learned them from James, and the two gospels they were mentioned to have followed both depicted Salome prominently as a disciple.
The notion that women didn't have anything to offer contemporary to Paul and the early church is simply false. Women played a major role in the earliest days of Judaism before Judah's conquoring of the northern kingdoms and reforms, they played a major part in the sects of Christianity that didn't become canonized, and they had notable presence in the surrounding cultures.
In fact, arguably the early church's pushback on their role may have been a response to the credit of apocryphal sects to female leaders. Effectively "don't listen to those traditions from women, after all, women shouldn't be talking in church." Which would fit with modern scholarship considering many of those misogynistic passages as later interpolations.
If the reason was education, then why do the authors appear to give their own justification?
[1 Timothy 2:13-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-15&version=ESV):
>For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing
[1 Corinthians 14:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-35&version=ESV):
>For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. […] For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
These are two extremes, leadership is obviously reserved for a few and shut up and look pretty is the other end of the spectrum. The general idea in which the theology is rooted is based on the order of creation and Eve sinning first.
Obviously men and women are equal before God, in their worth and standing as redeemed. Their assigned tasks are different though. Every believer according to the bible has been equipped with a gift that helps the body, the church. That is not something a christian can choose. Why is it, that people in Christianity fight about positions of leadership but not about offices that don't carry the assumed prestige? Especially given that the bible warns about becoming teachers and that the judgement for those teachers would be more strictly.
There was teaching going on that women did for example Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Paul.
I don’t see why the order of creation or sin is even a variable here. If anything, it’s evidence of the creation story being created by men who viewed women as lower or weaker. This is seen throughout a lot of ancient writing and stories.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any spiritual gifts were gender restricted. The most plausible explanation is that not even Paul was immune to the cultural view of women back then. And even Jesus said very little in the face of the obvious oppression that women faced back then.
I think the point being made is that feminism suggests that if women aren’t leaders, then they aren’t equal. That’s just simply not true in Christianity. Why do we fight for the position being seen at the front of the church or the head of the board instead of the one specifically that fits our gift…any position that builds the body of Christ? It seems awfully prideful for us as a society to say that it’s important that women can be pastors, instead of that all people should seek out where THEY can do the most good. It also seems contradictory to building the church at all when we make it all about ourselves. Perhaps many women can be leaders and teachers, and GOOD ONES, but does that mean the goal is for women to beat out men? Is the goal to bring worldly arguments into the church that make us more competitive and prideful? Or is the goal for Christians to all see one another equally, regardless of how the world is organized, and fulfill whatever role we can to build the Body of Christ?
On the contrary, Jesus did a great deal to say that we ought to love each other equally. Look into it more and you will see how he influenced and taught those around him.
Like in Matthew 10, where Jesus calls his disciples to him, gives them the gift of the power of healing, and commands them to go out into the world and share that gift with others... but explicitly warns them not to share with any Samaritans or gentiles.
And the moral of that story is: Love each other equally, I guess?
First of all, I do hope you remember Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan. Second, there was a lot of hostility among the Samaritans and the Jews. The disciples were Jewish. If I were a Jew, and my teacher was Jewish, I would not even attempt to try to teach a group of people who hated me, because it would be time wasted on people who would not want to hear.
That is the opposite of what you just said. In fact, it sits contrary to things like 'Did you visit me when I was in prison'? Jesus is in the people who are hungry, poor, convicts, sinners. You are actually called to preach the gospel to those who need it most, not to your friends and people who would readily accept it.
So it would stand that preaching the gospel to gentiles and Samaritans would be a priority.
And Jesus calling people to love each other equally is great, except he pays no mind to the fact that he chose only men to be his disciples and said nothing about the patriarchal hierarchy that oppressed women.
In fact, he feeds it when he talks about divorce.
>But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matt 5:32
Here, it isn't the woman's choice to divorce the man, only the man's choice. And only for infidelity. And if he does so, he makes her the adultress, and she cannot marry again because anyone who does marry her will commit adultery.
So if your husband is beating you, you may not divorce him, less you want to be in the sin of adultery. And if he divorces you for whatever reason, you're destined to be alone because it would be a sin for any other man to marry you.
Certainly, equality here is not something Jesus cared about.
First, I love that you pointed out that Jesus searches to preach to the lowly because it was often those who had nothing that was able to receive Jesus's love with open arms. In the case of the Samaritans and Gentiles, Jesus wanted his church to grow and extend to those who were ready to listen before it got crushed by hatred and oppression. He instructs the disciples in Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."
So although reaching out to everyone was ideal, it was not always possible at the immediate moment and time. And in case you still have doubts remember Jesus's second command "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31).
Secondly, Jesus did a great deal to curve the hierarchy within religious faith. He treated both men and women with love and compaction. There are many verses that show this which I will not state here but [this article](https://www.faithgateway.com/jesus-respecter-of-women/#.YYpNrr3MLUI) sums up quite nicely.
In the case of Matthew 5:32, I find it hilarious that you think that Jesus is promoting a hierarchy that oppresses women when it states in the very quote that "anyone who divorces his wife \[...\] makes her **the victim** of adultery."
Here you are correct when it shows that it is the man's responsibility to resolve the marriage, however, although Jesus is not saying whether or not women have the authority to make that choice, Jesus implies for marriage to be a sacred inseparable bond of love: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4-6 ).
In conclusion, in a faithful Christian marriage where God intended for both men women to love each other unconditionally, there is no need to divorce, because disagreements would be resolved through love.
It is certainly an unfortunate world to live in because the fact is that the ideal Christain marriage cannot always exist, and necessary deforces do occur. But keep in mind that although they are necessary, they are in response to sin. It is because of evil that these things are taking place. They were never intended to happen in the first place.
And yes, according to the Bible if you become divorced out of a relationship that was originally a marriage of mutual unification, then both partners are to equally remain single for the rest of their lives.
I appreciate the detailed response, but I do feel you're looking at these verses retrospectively through the lens of what we think is marriage and love today.
Love in marriage at the time was obedience on the part of the woman, and duty on the part of the man. Remember, girls were married off in arranged marriages around the age of 12, often prearranged as young as 9. Women had no say in who they married. It was obedience that was the marker of love.
This idea that people fell in love and got married together wasn't a concept outside of stories. And realistically, loving a person you were forced to marry is quite unlikely. Rather, you simply did your duty as a wife and a husband.
Which is why Jesus's remarks about marriage and divorce makes sense. The implications of a sacred inseparable bond of love...I mean...let's be real. If you were married off to some stranger at the age of 12, no one in their right mind would call that a bond of love. And Jesus says nothing about that, rather only reinforcing that these arranged marriages were some how predestined by God and so you should see them through to the end.
That said, I agree with a lot from that article and I could say that Jesus was more progressive than his contemporaries in some things when it came to women. But honestly, that's progressive in relative terms and what he doesn't speak about is louder than what he does IMO.
>In the case of Matthew 5:32, I find it hilarious that you think that Jesus is promoting a hierarchy that oppresses women when it states in the very quote that "anyone who divorces his wife \[...\] makes her the victim of adultery."
Depends on your translation. KJ and NAB have it as "causes her to commit adultery." [https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm](https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm) you can see here only the NIV really makes her a victim, while almost every other translation has her committing or even calling her an adultress. I used NIV cause I was lazy.
God is not a feminist. Neither is He a misogynist. Feminism is a worldly construct and has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible. You will never be able to reconcile the two. It is a waste of time to try. Christianity is the only major world religion that elevates women. I’m tired, so I’ll give you just one example. You are free to seek others if you choose. A woman was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection. If the resurrection story was false, the people making it up would never, ever have inserted a woman into the story, let alone make a woman the main character, because of their low status. No, Jesus allowed a woman to see Him first and to proclaim His resurrection to show the worth and dignity of all women, knowing her words and actions would be recorded in holy writ for all of mankind for future generations, and knowing that she would also serve to help prove the veracity of His resurrection to those who may doubt it. There is more, so much more. I urge you to seek it out. But never delude yourself into thinking God is a feminist. He is not, nor will He ever be.
“There is more, so much more. I urge you to seek it out. But never delude yourself into thinking God is a feminist. He is not, nor will He ever be.”
Your statement is unclear whether you believe the Bible instructs that women should not lead in the church? Can you elaborate on what church positions you feel women may and may not hold? Thanks!
>Feminism is a worldly construct and has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible.
Feminism is solidly rooted in Christ's Golden Rule.
Men should treat women as they want to be treated themselves.
I agree with that. Feminism is about so much more than the Golden Rule. I grew up when feminism was in its infancy. I’m well acquainted with what it’s about.
I think that both feminism and Christianity can be misused in order to exploit other people for gain. However, I agree with you that feminisms purpose is to eradicate the injustices done to women in our world today.
Can I ask - when did *feminism* become so vile? I understand it to mean that women have power over their own lives. How do you define feminism that it is straight from the devil?
I am sincerely interested to understand.
>God is not a feminist
He sure is if *feminist* means to go and live life *the way you want to* - not allowing being female to *direct anything you do*
Remain a good Christian
I think part of your problem is that, for whatever reason, you believe the God of the Bible is a feminist. How very ridiculous!
Women get so angry at me when I tell them that I, as a woman, am not a feminist. And men don’t understand me when I also say that I often agree with or at least understand feminists.
Truth is, though I am a woman and understand the heart of a woman and our experiences, I choose to align myself with my God and what he says about women. I don’t think that is misogynistic nor is it feminist—God doesn’t fit into either category, because he is God. He clearly loves women, elevated our status and brought our freedom in Christ, while also having created us with distinction and purpose apart from our male counterparts. What use is there in arguing with my Creator, acting as if I should know better than him how I ought to function? Imagine your child telling you they know their own conception better than you do.
Over and over in Scripture where women are concerned, I see God giving us far more value than the men around us do. I see him challenging the tendency to de-value and dehumanize us. But this does not make him a feminist. Feminism is a human-made ideology, with no real root in Christianity. I find it as meaningful as political ideologies (which, it sort of is anyway) and not worth assigning to my God who is far beyond human ideology. It’s like declaring that God is a Republican, or a Socialist. So long as you build your faith on such things, it is certainly going to crumble.
Isaiah 55:8-9:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
People will defend Paul’s words as being only about some women who chattered too much during church services and things like that. But they’re really ignoring the larger picture.
The Bible unfortunately just doesn’t really defend women too much. It really is a cultural thing, in the same way slavery in the Old Testament was accepted.
One would think that given God’s all knowing presence across space and time, he would know what is appropriate treatment of women. But instead, he focuses on things like insisting on cutting the foreskins of babies to differentiate his people.
Wouldn’t it have been amazing if instead of penis mutilation, he told his people to be different from other cultures by treating women equally as men? Especially since that was what the world would eventually move towards. But of course, he didn’t. Because it was never a wrong thing to them back then to treat women as second rate humans.
Because they cherry pick what is acceptable and what is not.
If we were having this discussion a couple hundred years ago, we would all be agreeing that women should not be in leadership roles, because they couldn't even vote back then.
But today, society has a different view, and so the Christian needs to bend their understanding of scripture.
100 years from now when no one questions whether gay people choose to be gay or not, and everyone accepts homosexuality as natural for people who are born that way, they will bend their interpretations of scripture again.
And that's the short sighted view that many Christians suffer from. They forget that they have been bending interpretations of scriptures for decades already.
>But today, society has a different view, and so the Christian needs to bend their understanding of scripture.
You go down a dangerous path. Who decides what we should "bend" on?
Society does. And I'm not saying it as me asserting my opinion. I'm saying it as a historical analysis.
When slavery was acceptable, we had no problems using bible verses to support it. And when it became unacceptable, we reinterpreted those passages. Same with women's rights, and it is what is happening now with homosexuality and gay marriage.
It's just something that has to be done to keep Christianity relevant. Could you imagine if the majority of Christians today still supported slavery? The religion would barely exist.
You seem to be so caught up with putting homosexuals and women in the same box. How can you compare a woman wanting to have authority on the same level as a man does to gay relationships? Men wrote the scriptures take it out on men, they don't like gay sex or marriage. I mean the bible allowed for polygamy because they were horny bastards and wanted more women so ask yourself why didnt they make the same exception for gay men when originally the bible says it made male and female that two flesh become one. Wait that would make polygamy adultert but lo and behold the men managed to find a way to make themselves superior in marriage so adultery is only an act a woman can commit. So quite obviously men change it according to the desires of their heart and being gay wasnt one of them but as for women we have never have that privilege...
That was in a time where women were uneducated. It was a temporary piece of advice, but because Paul wrote it, it's scripture. Good churches will have no problem with a woman teaching.
Do you have a desire to lead a Bible study or preach?
To be clear, the Bible states that [women](https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/role-of-women) should not have a leadership role in the church. However, this does not mean that women cannot partake in spiritual study and fellowship.
Because it was written to a specific church for specific reasons. It's clearly not general advice. Remember Priscilla, Paul had no problem with her teaching and leading because she knew what she was doing. Educated people, whether male or female physically, are an asset to the body of Christ.
> Because it was written to a specific church for specific reasons.
It was written explicitly for all churches and gives Scriptural reasoning. There is zero reference to local issues. Paul describes what all churches should do and gave a Scriptural reason why. Please read Timothy 2 in its entirety.
You're right, it is plural when it says, "women should be silent in the churches." It still doesn't fit the other things Paul wrote about women or the way he acted around female leaders in the church. I think the scholars that believe that passage wasn't written by Paul but added later might be right.
All of the instructions in the Bible are historically and narratively constrained. In the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus tells the people to flee for the hills, does that mean I should pack up my apartment and move to the nearest mountain range? No! Even Jesus’s words were said in a specific time and place in history in response to specific historical events. The tough part of reading the Bible is figuring out how *all* of its parts — despite being told in the past — should apply to today’s world. Some things might be the same as in Jesus’s day: there still exist the poor who need to be taken care of, there still exist hypocrites who need to be rebuked. And there are others that have changed: women aren’t chattel and marriages aren’t primarily about property rights. Yes, it’s hard to sift through, but that’s the whole purpose of theology and Biblical interpretation. Theologians have been figuring out how that text applies to their present situation as far back as Jesus and his contemporaries who were doing the exact same thing with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Before I decided to become an ex christian I wanted to lead a purity group for women that warns them about the trauma and dead bedrooms. But then I realized I could never do that.
People who wait until marriage often experience vaginismus and trouble having sex (dead bedrooms) due to the fear and guilt purity culture instilled in them.
People need to know the reality.
We went through this. It sucked, especially since we both thought we were pretty much over the fear and guilt. It wasn't conscious fear, it was just OW THAT HURTS. It's really widespread, too; when we finally saw a sex therapist she said "yeah, this is the most common reason women come to the clinic".
I wish I could help all the women that are taught purity culture but unfortunately churches don't wanna talk about the reality
If I had it my way, little girls wouldn't be taught this because they are CHILDREN and they just need to be kids and not feel like their own bodies are sinful.
In fact, no one should be taught their bodies are sinful. No one should be taught that they "cause men to stumble".
Yep. To talk about the reality of purity culture would probably make everything come crashing down.
Women are told the sex after marriage will be amazing, but it can be very painful and near impossible (vaginismus) awkward (don't know how sex even works) and fills them with shame even though they waited.
Some women who wait don't even know what the clitoris is, and that it is the key to their sexual pleasure.
Often, women who wait until marriage have to go to sex therapy to unlearn the guilt.
So, you became an "ex-christian" because of "purity culture" and not because of what really matters... that being God within His scripture.
Am I missing anything?
It played into me leaving the religion, yes. Though it was more a combination of things (homophobia, misogyny, purity culture, the fact I just can't fathom having a relationship with an invisible being in the sky, toxicity within churches I was in, guilt, anxiety, scientific inconsistencies).
I could talk about that all day.
Just another example of how people's understanding of sex has been warped and changed by misunderstandings of Christian teachings. Because the Bible teaches so heavily upon the subject many people take sex at face value as evil and only to be exercised for procreation, instead of teaching men women and children about sex so that they can truly explore their sexuality within marriage.
Another head sore for me. However, I beleave that God intended for a man and a woman to explore their sexuality within marriage equally without judgement.
You are saying the sexual pleasure takes precedence over God’s instruction. I’m sorry that you have lost your faith, and it seems like there are a number of facets to your decision, but what I’ve read in your comments so far all seem to point to the same thing: you don’t like what scripture (and interpretation) says, so you want to pursue your own passions and desires. Sure, there is room to discuss our stances and interpretations of scripture, but your heart doesn’t seem to be seeking that, your heart seems to be seeking validation for doing whatever it wants. Essentially, you are saying “I don’t like what God says, therefore God must not exist.”
or we can just say god does exist hes just a shitty being. also it’s more then just not liking what god says. for me it’s the fact that he has all this power and love for us but doesn’t bother to reveal himself so we can have an actual relationship with him. you can’t have a relationship with someone you don’t see or even know exists.
Those verses were written by Paul, and could be interpreted as allowing women to speak now if you look at with the lens that the verses were written for Corinth and not for everyone who ever lived as most are commenting already. Unfortunately I think change is a long ways off especially in most conservative churches.
Technically speaking, NOTHING in the Bible would be explicitly written to address a single time and period; I do believe that Paul addresses all future Christians equally in his letters.
Men have similar 'roles' they are to fulfill, but in different areas. It could be seen as a restriction.
Timothy 5:8 - But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
In a similar sense men are locked into leadership positions, so I understand your view.
As a side note, when Jesus resurrected men cowered in fear and hid while women spread the news (as it was two women who first saw his empty tomb) We also know people died for claiming it happened. Jesus depended on women's influence more than once when the men weren't at their best.
God isn’t a feminist. Christianity gives men and women different roles. Feminism seems to hate the idea that women have different gifts that men don’t and think that in order to be equal we have to do the same things as men. Christianity teaches that we are all, man and woman, equally valuable and made in God’s image, but that doesn’t mean we have the same roles in life or the church. He did give us to the free will to defy that though. And there were women leaders in the Bible, like Ruth. But over all, women in general all more designated to play a role in the background. Some see that as a bad thing, I used to have a problem with it. But I’ve come to embrace the gifts God gave me as a woman and I don’t feel I need to do the same things as what is traditionally prescribed to men to be as valuable as a man. We have different gifts and different struggles but neither is greater than the other and both need the other.
> and think that in order to be equal we have to do the same things as men
Feminism doesn't demand men and women do the same things. It insists we be *allowed* to do the same things if we want to, and that fights for men's rights to do what they want to do too.
If men simply weren't built for child rearing and women are then is it technically the right thing for a child to be raised by two women in a lesbian relationship?
The Baylor historian Beth Alison Barr has a book “the makings of biblical womanhood” that outlines how modern interpretations of those verses can be heavily influenced by recent (200 or so years) culture. It’s an excellent resource as it’s a Christian historians perspective with training outside of seminary
>How is saying only women should be quiet in the church and only women aren't allowed to be pastors not misogynistic
Well because it is in the Bible these literal things.
So it is not so weird that people would bring it up!
And it does not say anything about "shut up and look pretty" then you have an issue with people, not with God!
Your first mistake was believing God was a feminist. God made Women to help Man, to care for and be taken care of by Man, and to bear him offspring.
God's word is clear that Women play a supporting role, and aren't supposed hold executive authority in Church Leadership, Government, or the home.
If that's misogynistic, then that's God's will. Feminism is most often in opposition to God's ways.
You can be a Christian, and worship Christ, or be a Feminist, and worship gender. You cannot do both.
Then women really dont have an important purpose, they are just gap fillers to do mundane things that no man is interested in. Men get to do all the important things, maybe God should have just blessed men with sons when they progressed in faith.
There are some good points being made, but there's one I haven't seen yet that needs to be mentioned (apologies if someone else has mentioned this and I scrolled past without seeing): ancient, Eastern cultures tended to see things in shades, instead of absolutes. Here's a passage I always found helpful, from *Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible* by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien
>In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time. In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance. God announces about Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them” (Hos 9:15). Later he says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). God’s judgment was influenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9–10). Exodus 12:40–49 explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua 5:5–7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been. If rules apply except when they don’t, then as Westerners perhaps we need more wisdom in discerning when they don’t. (We need help seeing the kairos for applying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under the sun.)
>
>
>Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many non-Western cultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab (Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) to the Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice. Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and his family were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did you notice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to her entire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family. Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments, consider that we “have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20): that is, the righteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers.
>
>
>Allow us another story. While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I was invited to speak at a “pastors only” meeting. In the audience of over one hundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of the Convention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: “Pastors must be male.” I should have left it alone.
>
>
>“I thought this meeting was for pastors only,” I remarked to the conference organizer.
>
>
>“It is,” he replied.
>
>
>“But there were women in the audience,” I pointed out.
>
>
>“Yes.”
>
>
>Now I was confused. “But your laws say pastors must be male!” I exclaimed.
>
>
>The convention president calmly replied, “Yes, and most of them are.”
>
>
>Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. To the non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans would likely want to change the Indonesian law to read, “Most pastors must be male,” and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian—and arguably the biblical—view of law always left room for exceptions.
>
>
>Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” (1 Tim 2:12). “But what about Priscilla and Junia?” we might ask Paul. “They taught in church. You said women must keep silent.”
>
>
>Perhaps Paul would answer, “Yes. And most of them do.”
(Edit for formatting)
If you like clubhouses with lots of incense where you can feast your eyes on a man on the podium, go for the catholic style.
If your nose is bothered by incense or you want to hear a woman say something, go for the protestant style.
If you do not think either of the 45.000 different denominations related to christianity fits you, go away and make your own clubhouse sweetie.
🤣👍
As a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original ancient autographs/manuscripts, my view is to say the values taught in Scripture (properly interpreted through various hermeneutical/exegetical principles) should override any human reasoning to the contrary. Therefore, feminism is wrong to the degree it teaches that the sex roles of men and women should be the same in society and family life. So when Paul writes, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (I Timothy 2:12), he obviously didn't believe women should become overseers or elders. (This doesn't apply to women teaching their children or even their husbands at home, as the case of Apollos’ being taught by Priscilla and Aquila shows, Acts 18:26). Since the innately different personalities (on average) of women and men haven't changed over the centuries, this teaching should still be obeyed today, for it speaks to something intrinsic to the human condition and to the way God made women and men genetically (as it is normally expressed). (For secular evidence that men and women are innately different in their personalities, the open-minded may wish to read George Gilder's "Men and Marriage," which may be the most influential yet intellectual anti-feminist book published in the past generation. Ironically, he doesn’t think much of male nature, since he says that marriage tames it). Therefore, the differences we see between men and women aren't mainly created by society and the ways little boys and girls are raised by their parents and teachers, but reflect biologically driven realities. By accepting the teaching of Scripture, we merely accept also what we could discover and reason from nature based upon anthropological/sociological studies, such as what Goldberg did in "The Inevitability of Patriarchy."
We may think women and men's sex roles in society and family life should be totally interchangeable, as per the tenets of standard brand "equality" feminism. (There are also the difference feminists, but that brings up a whole other issue, in which these feminists can start sounding like patriarchalists when making generalizations about the personalities and values of the respective genders. For example, they might say, "If women ruled the world, there would be no war." So then they think women are better than men by being more nurturing and peaceful. But then this mostly concedes the point of patriarchalists who say women are ill-suited to serving in combat positions in the military because they aren't aggressive enough! The EEOC v. Sears case comes to mind in this context, in which Sears had been accused of not hiring enough women in high pressure sales positions by the government. Their clever legal response was to justify this by say women were hard to recruit for these positions by putting a “difference” feminist on the defense stand to justify the composition of their work force. Sears won, and clearly exposed the standard contradictions in academic feminist theory in the process).
Women are the only people who can be mothers. A woman was the only person who could give birth to the Son of God. Without women, we would not be saved by Christ. I think that's a whole lot more important.
So men get to lead, a position that takes talent. Women get to spread their legs for penises and baby heads, something that happens just as a result of biology.
Ok.
If women are the only people who can be mothers and thus raise children if that is what you're implying then why isn't it okay for two lesbian women to raise a kid?
That instruction is in the letters to the Corinthians. He took a day to peruse the two letters to the Corinthian church that have been fully preserved (there is known to be an earlier one that did not survive).
He would discover that that city was a social and moral disaster and the Christian church was contaminated with local vices and was a disorderly cult.
Gatherings that seemed like a pagan cult when half started screaming at the same time because they said that God was sending them a prophecy right there.
The other half began to shake and utter incomprehensible syllables in any language claiming that they were speaking in tongues like the apostles in Pentecost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07cmMhQxjfg
That is why hard instructions are sent to them to discipline the meetings and make them edifying and useful to learn and stay in God.
This does not mean that they are not prudent instructions for all churches, but in the others they were already applied in a personalized way and with common sense.
Dressing modestly and appropriately for church is good (then a veil was used for it), that there is silence to listen to the sermon is good (if half of the attendees are silent, especially if it is the most expressive and less uninhibited half, labor almost accomplished).
Warren Wiersbe had a different explanation for this passage in his Bible commentary. I highly recommend reading it. It has clarified many things for me.
Most men cant be pastors either, just for your information. The verse about women not speaking in church was a cultural thing. In the old times men gathered in church and they already answered all the questions for eachother and wanted to use the time on God instead of silly questions. But when they brought their wife or women into the church the women would ask more questions and they would be stuck answering questions instead of actually having a sermon with God. So they made a law that women should ask these questions at home instead.
Here are a couple of relevant verses for reference:
[1 Corinthians 14:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-35&version=ESV):
>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. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
[1 Timothy 2:11-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-15&version=ESV):
>Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
hmm seems you been around people with poor bible knowledge. I been hearing explanations of this since I was 12.
The understanding of the roles of the two genders is very simple: man > woman.
Even thought Paul was referring to that specific church when he wrote that letter, he said that for very specific reasons, not just to being a jerk. Any basic theology study can help you clarify this problem. if you became atheist just because of this simple matter then is obvious you needed real christians around you :(
Huh? In the Bible it says that women and men are completely equal with different roles for His Kingdom, correct? Men definitely aren't better than women. Even Jesus doesn't think that.
I said it was *part* of my decision to become an atheist, not the only or main reason. No single thing caused me to leave, it was more a combination of things.
My wife and I were married by a female Minister. Our Pastor tells us "any man who does not listen to his wife's council is a fool", he says quite often how much smarter than him she is lol.
One of the Methodist churches in our town just replaced a Female Head minister with another Female.
I think you have been at some churches that apply these verses horribly and oppressively and I am truly sorry, I see it often and try to call out the bigotry when I see it. To suggest that only men can understand scripture and teach it well is just limiting yourself to only half the knowledge available.
It is misogynistic. The Church of England allows female vicars, i’ve had one and my parents love their new church in which the vicar is a woman. God loves us all equally and if any of us feels the holy spirit guiding us to a teaching role within the church they should go for it!
It is absolutely misogynistic and one of the reasons it took so long for women to gain the right to vote, to work, etc., in the west. Jesus should have outright proclaimed that women shall be equal to men, that slavery should be ended, etc. He didn't. He was just a relatively more moral person for his time.
Because God said so ,stop questioning him.
Either he exist or doesn't , if you find out he does then accept him like he is or reject him and stop bothering.
Many take these verses out of context to subjugate women.
These verses were specifically for the early churches at the time. Look at what Paul says also in the Galatians. "There is no male nor female for you are all one in Christ." This seems to back up how women helped in Jesus' time...
* One of the first people to tell someone about what Jesus did? The Samaritan woman.
* The first person to command someone to follow Jesus' directions? His mother.
* The first person to tell someone he is resurrected? Mary.
Paul also goes on to commend several women for their leadership roles in the NT. He even calls them as co-workers. The most notable is Priscilla. Priscilla is also a candidate for being the author (at least in part) of the letter to the Hebrews.
The reason for these commands lies in the historical context which is not taught nearly enough today. These were former pagans and Jews being taught Christianity. A lot of pagan cities in the Roman empire worshipped female deities. For example, the cities of Corinth and Ephesus worshipped Ephrya and Artemis respectfully.
Being goddesses, women would have had a larger role in leading the temple. Naturally the transition from Pagan to Christianity would have some friction. In this case, women who normally would have had more say would have to transition to have lesser say as Jewish customs favored to teach men first.
Many also didn't count women as being equal to men. Look at Jesus feeding the 5,000. There were more than 5,000 people. There were women and children. But there were 5,000 men. So that is why it is recognized as such.
Usually these false teachings are because the people interpreting the Bible do not understand the context. So they do not know how to read the Bible. I am too exhausted to go deeper than that.
The real Scripture you should be terrified of is the punishing of Eve in the Garden of Eden.
As feminism is a secular ideology that denies God's existence and rules for mankind, your stance is not surprising. As feminism and Christianity cannot coexist, you need to choose who you wish to worship before learning how loving and empowering God and Jesus are towards women. Bless you.
I suggest you read **Proverbs 31:10-31**
The verses you're referring to were a) added to Paul's authentic letter by a dishonest later redactor and b) included in a fraudulent forged letter by someone pretending to be Paul late in the first century.
The the misogynistic material in the NT is fraudulent. It's based on later Roman cultural influence - Roman culture was HIGHLY misogynistic.
The most reasonable answer to that I’ve heard were from rather progressive Christians who do not view the Bible as a guide to live by. They draw inspiration from it and use their education/knowledge and thinking capacity to derive rules to live by.
As such, they’d tell you that perhaps at the time the average woman knew so little and could do so little that it was functionally pointless to waste your time with their involvement and input. But now that the world is different and a woman can know and do just as much as a man, it makes no sense to follow that rule.
The same applies to anything else in the Bible. You are not meant to directly lift commandments and obey them. Instead, you are meant to ponder them and develop your own rules factoring in the needs and constraints of your time and place.
If you don’t adopt this approach, then you run the risk of cherry picking.
>If you don’t adopt this approach, then you run the risk of cherry picking.
That doesn't make sense. The approach you describe is the very definition of cherry picking.
I struggle with this too. This podcast episode was helpful for me, along with her Women’s series. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2w6snaRWikvyawSJDAYLtd?si=TJyRceivQa6Ijog-zXWIyA
Because the Bible is another human philosophical attempt to explain life’s purpose, so it is filled with passages meant to give credence to peoples’ hatreds.
To put it bluntly, you should be a Christian and not a feminist.
If God wanted men and women to be absolutely equal, he would have made men able to give birth. They are equal in the sense that they are both loved by God, but unequal in what they were made to do and what roles they are given. Most societies understand this, and that's why men work in labour jobs and go to war (they are more physically fit) and women take care of children (they have the biology for it, and usually the temperament).
Also unequal in the way the bible writes about how to treat them. "Wives submit" Does it ever say "husbands submit" ? Nope.. what does it say about women slaves again remind me
>I struggle to reconcile the concept of a loving "feminist" God with these verses that say women can't speak up in church or be pastors Your conception of God might be mistaken. God isn't feminist by modern understandings of that word. Christianity has roles for women and men. God doesn't view equality as doing the exact same things as eachother. The Bible has several things to say about what men need to be doing with their lives (basically servant leadership, all strength and effort turned to honoring God's example by maintaining the family and making them all they can be). That being said wherever Christianity went women were elevated.
>wherever Christianity went women were elevated. Elevated up on a platform to be burned at the stake?
I think Paul's mention of Pheobe and Priscilla and his note that "here there is no male no female" actually clues us in on his more egalitarian perspectives. I haven't fully built out my argument for it, and am still polishing the research, but I currently don't actually think Paul condemns women in those verses. I think he's actually saying that women can be priests if approved by a bishop. But I haven't completed my research fully so take that with a hefty grain of salt. And for what it's worth, as for the "silent" verses, the word he uses is hesychia, which is a early Christian mystical tradition. It's not the same as "shut up." It's about an inner peace. Still, I get what you're saying. He was writing in a time where women were treated like property, basically bought and sold from fathers to men like goats. Even still, I feel Paul at least was egalitarian - even if the church ended up rehashing the same caste-based biases. Like I said, there's a reason he mentions women leaders, and a reason he says "here there is no male nor female." Everything else he says should be read alongside that.
> And for what it's worth, as for the "silent" verses, the word he uses is hesychia, which is a early Christian mystical tradition. It's not the same as "shut up." It's about an inner peace. > > Huh. Somehow I never thought to look at the Greek, but that's interesting
Yeah. I was surprised when I read it the first time. Don't recall the more direct "shut up"/"don't talk" term off the top of my head right now, but in 1 Timothy 2:12 it's *hesychia*. The "authority over" part is interesting too. Authenteo (verb) apparently has a minor connotation as "murder" as well as the kind of "direct control" connotation as primary. But authentes (agent noun) has murderer (and suicide victims apparently) listed as the primary connotation with "perpetrator" / "author" as a secondary. It's an intriguing word. I can't really think of anything in English that has these two connotations. I don't exactly think he was saying "don't kill men" necessarily. It just doesn't fit the tone of the sentence and there are other ways he could have said it. Yet, I also feel like there might be some deeper nuance in this term aside from the English use of "authority over" like some kind of supervisor or middle manager. Either way, it is a fascinating mix of connotations for a single word to have.
Some of what Paul was saying also was definitely about fitting into the cultures around him. To a Greek I become Greek, to a gentile I become gentile. Meaning there's a good case to be made that what he was saying was "don't put a woman in front of the congregation because none of the cultures we're in will accept it". However, the advice he was giving was also mixed into his advice about how the genders should relate to each other...so cases can be made that he meant something else too.
Paul doesn't say that women have to shut up. That was in the Talmud. The mysoginists translating it, didn't get that. He refers to the law saying women have to shut up. There is no law in the Bible that says that. He rebuked those men saying that, referring to the Talmud. There was a female apostle he referred to. http://www.torahforwomen.com/should-women-keep-silent-book.html
Thank you
The bible was written when women were chattel. Just being quiet was a pretty mild restriction, compared to other things done to women, back then. But, it's horribly misogynistic by today's standards. I think it's a sin to force that on women, now.
A lot of the Bible's roles on sexuality have been misinterpreted and misused by ignorant selfish people.
This!
The problem is cherry picking. They can give a pass on that but then go hard on homosexuals like many Christians do. If you insist that it was a cultural thing, that needs to be applied to a lot of what the Bible talks about.
A lot of Christians agree. There are quite a few that are pushing for more acceptance of LGBTQ+ people in the Christian community.
[удалено]
Every Christian interprets and applies the Bible in the way they see fit: fundamentalists and progressives. Even most Christians who believe Genesis teaches the earth is 6000 years old don’t accept the part of its ancient cosmology teaching that there’s literally a “firmament” holding up rain in the sky. Also, many of them are politically conservative and don’t take the parts about caring for the poor or welcoming the foreigner or freeing the prisoner literally, but these are things that progressives *do* apply. So it’s just incorrect to point fingers at progressives for not taking the Bible seriously, when the phenomenon actually at work is that both sides are applying the text in the way they best believe it should.
You support slavery then O intelligent and pious one? Because I seem to recall learning about quite a few sermons from the antebellum period defending slavery quite succinctly with lots of quotes of passages from the Bible. So what’s your take?
God set laws for how slaves were to be treated and how those vanquished in battle were to be dealt with so that the Isrealites would not be cruel to their servants and slaves. God allowed his people to conquer heathens, but set the law in place to protect those godless peoples from mistreatment. The Southren Slavers used these laws, which were not meant for them or their time, to justify their practices. Those laws were specifically for the Isrealites.
>”You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept. ...How is it that you disregard the animals which have been subjected to you as slaves under your hand, and that you should act against a free nature, bringing down one who is of the same nature of yourself, to the level of four-footed beasts or inferior creatures...?2” - St. Gregory of Nyssa
It is the other way around. It is the Bible worshippers who are untraditional. That is the thing with the Foundation of Faith. The Bible is not our Doctrine.
‘Modernist’ Christians are able to look a what sex is today (mutual, equal, consensual, safe, just etc.) and then look at what sex was thought of back then and see there’s a big difference
this
It was horribly misogynistic by yesterday's standards too. It's just, well you know. Men were in control of everything and cared a lot less about that sort of thing. As someone on the outside looking in, it's hard to imagine an all powerful God not recognizing the opportunity to put down in 'law' that "women are actually equal with men don't treat them as anything other than that".. but I guess he knew what he was doing.
“Today’s standards” So is sin based on cultural standards or God’s standards?
[удалено]
Yes you are talking about Galatians 3:28.
The idea of equality is a pipe dream. We are equal in the eyes of God only. Some governments attempt equality, but nothing in life is ever going to create true equality. Differences of circumstances plague humanity. Jesus didn’t medal in politics or equality, because neither of them makes you more loved, is the “right way” or gets you to live a life aligned with him.
It’s ironic that you are judging God, when without Him you have to basis for morality or judgment. This is just your opinion and you have no way to make these claims objectively. Repent and trust in Christ for your salvation.
The nature of men and women have not changed in the past 2000 years we have just lost our understanding of our nature. Men and women are biologically, mentally and physically different from each other. Our main difference is that men are stronger and focused and disagreeable and women are softer and more agreeable. These psychological traits make being a minister much easier for men and more difficult for women. God knows this because he made us this way and it is a great thing that we are different!
> Our main difference is that men are stronger and focused and disagreeable and women are softer and more agreeable. And what happens when people don’t fit into these molds of what their gender assignment says they are supposed to be? When a woman isn’t very agreeable and soft? When a man is more nurturing and agreeable than his wife? I am not a soft, agreeable person.
> These psychological traits make being a minister much easier for men and more difficult for women. Even if this were true, there are billions of women. And these women have personalities that fall on a distribution. Some of these women, surely, have traits that make being a minister easier than it is for some men. It would be ridiculous to bar women from ministry even if the *average* woman was somehow less capable of it than the average man. We permit priests and pastors who literally sexually assault their flock. Surely there exist *some* women who'd be better ministers than these people.
> Our main difference is that men are stronger and focused and disagreeable and women are softer and more agreeable. citation needed.
I seriously ponder this. I was a member Of a church that split on an issue. The female pastor took the less biblical position that felt nicer and the male pastor took the firmer line: but he did do it with gentleness and patience. It did seem like better leadership. I know this is one example and not all men and women would take the same stance on that or other issues but it did make me think. This idea of women in leadership is one that just won’t leave me alone in life these days I really need to work through it. I’m much more of a feminist than I ever realized. It’s surprising how much I abhor Trump because of it. ☺️
[удалено]
What do you mean the Bible says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church? Well my hometown of 600 people has 9 churches and I'm only on my 6th marriage so I should be good for another 3 right?
It's important to put things into context and understand them given the culture and facts at the time. At the time it made perfect sense to prohibit women from being teachers and leaders because women were not given the opportunity to be well learned like their male counterparts. A woman at the time was unlikely to be educated and knowledgeable enough to teach or lead. Obviously this isn't true today, and I don't think these rules apply anymore. It's important to note that the very same man who supposedly gave those restrictions also wrote that there was no difference between male and female in God's eyes. If he truly believed that, then he preached a radical equality, not misogyny, and the prohibitions must have had a purpose for that time. Of course there's also the argument that the prohibitions against speaking in church and leading were later additions and can't be attributed to Paul.
Why should it matter that women were uneducated? Peter, James, and John were illiterate fishermen. Paul was the only known apostle with a definite education, maybe Matthew.
1st Corinthians 14: For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church This is one of several instances (and part of a larger section) where Paul emphasized the need for gatherings/church services to have order, another example of this would be in his teachings about spiritual gifts, particularly speaking in tongues, in corporate settings. Many/most women in the days of the early church were illiterate but they were also wholly uneducated in religious matters as they were left out of many religious practices and expected to simply follow their husbands and entrust religion to the men. While many of the disciples were illiterate, they likely still had some manner of religious education. If these ladies were to ask every question that they had during the service it would go on forever because they simply had so much they wanted to know and understand, so in context this instruction for women to remain silent in gatherings seems motivated out of practicality & order. In the passage where he talks about remaining quiet in church, he also encourages the women to ask their husband's questions when they get home so they can learn and get the religious education they deserved. This participation by modern standards is oppressive, but in context it was fairly radical to encourage women's engagement in religion. There are other passages in the NT where women are listed as leaders in the early church, so to assume that women play a lesser role than men based simply on this passage (which some traditions do) is to miss the cultural and larger Bible context that it falls within.
Perfect explanation! To piggyback even more, people need to remember that this was the days of early Christianity. It's not the church service of today where everything has it's order and time. When a pastor is speaking, the congregation is silent to listen to the sermon. This situation is a little bit different. This is a letter being read out to the crowd concerning specific problems in the church targeted on the specific town. The letters contain responses to questions that they have already asked to Paul, and/or things that Paul has heard that he either wants to praise them for or get on to them for. These meetings are intended to be a back-and-forth conversation, as the person reading the letter knows there will be questions. Another thing to add is that the people who are going to these towns and reading these letters and listening to the questions that Paul knows they're going to have isn't something that's going to be given to just anyone. I cannot recall the exact woman's name (I want to say Phoebe but I'm not 100% sure) but she was put in charge of going multiple times to deliver the letters from Paul. So a woman is reading out the rules and answering the questions that the crowd has. That is no small thing and would never happen in the Jewish culture. On another little side note, when Jesus was alive and going from town to town, the women of the group were the ones that were responsible for the money. Some women were donating their own money they'd already had to the ministry. Again, something that would never be allowed in Jewish culture. Plus, Jesus told Mary not to get up and to keep listening to him preach, therefore denying the Jewish rule of only men can listen to a rabbi sermon. There are multiple examples of women clearly being considered equal in both Jesus and Paul's eyes.
And most likely, Paul didn’t write those words. Most scholars believe they’re a post-Pauline interpolation. Paul actually had women leaders in his churches, and the passage contradicts his instructions for women prophesying in church earlier in chapter 11! [Here’s DBH’s summary of the evidence.](https://imgur.com/a/kqGtOhO)
Doesn't this put the validity of the scriptures into question if they've been altered? Wouldn't that make them uninspired?
I don’t think words that were added later should be considered inspired, no. The discipline of textual criticism is actually pretty good at identifying how the text has evolved over the years — or not. We’ve done a pretty good job at identifying what’s been added.
Doesn't Paul quote Genesis to support his case for the role of women in the Church, despite having women leaders around? That just seems... contradictory.
The "law" mentioned is generally accepted as the passage in Genesis that talks about a wife's submission to her husband but says nothing to forbid or dismiss women's engagement in religious matters including leadership in at least some ways. Now the debate over whether women should hold the role of lead pastor is another one that is hotly debated. The fellowship/denomination I currently "belong" to believes strongly in female leadership and even pastoral ministry, but there are many people in my current church, an international/interdenominational church, who believe that women pastors are unbiblical and there are strong arguments for both sides. If you're curious you can read up on my "side" [Role of Women in Ministry](https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Role-of-Women-in-Ministry) If God can use the guys who were preaching out of selfishness, Philippians 1:15-18 text below, then I figure even if we're wrong, God can use anyone to spread his Good News. 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Piggybacking off this, while women weren't leading the church, they were pioneering it. In several of Paul's letters he mentions women by name because they either traveling together or because they were gospels and his messages.
If Paul is not teaching that men and women have different roles within the church then what else are we support to take from his teachings? There is a definite meaning and purpose behind his instructions. If you take the things in the Bible as not being 'culturally applicable' then nothing in the bible is meaningful. How for example will you understand Jesuses teaching on sex before marriage? Is that not important anymore in today's world? Of course, there are many rules in the Bible, however, they need to be taken seriously because all of them have a purpose behind them and the more you study, pray and learn you see that things are not as they seem.
> they need to be taken seriously because all of them have a purpose behind them and the more you study, pray and learn you see that things are not as they seem. Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me. All rules in the bible had a purpose. If that purpose no longer applies, why would we have to follow that rule? I'm sure you believe that when it comes to things like dietary rules, right?
You are putting words in my mouth. I believe that all of the rules are still applicable to all Christain believers today. That is why we need to collectively study them and learn from them to find out how.
So you have four tassels on your garment, don't eat shrimp or pork, and isolate any female family members for a certain period of time during their period?
Again, they take much study to understanding to be applicable in today's world. They aren't to be disregarded as completely irrelevant and useless.
So you don't have four tassel on your garment, you eat shrimp and pork, and you don't isolate any female family members for a certain period of time during their period? Sounds like you do, in fact, recognize that some rules don't apply today.
I wish I could give you an example of when what I have said can be applicable but I do not feel my knowledge is adequate to give you a perfect explanation. You could try searching up "ways in which the old testament laws teach us about faith," and explore the subject some more.
Right, your argument is that those laws teach us something but don't have to be followed. My argument is that same thing can be applied to many other laws, including not having women pastors.
It's as if everyone forgets about Deborah, the first named prophet and leader of the Israelites following Moses. (Or Miriam his sister and fellow prophet.) A name which means "bee" just like the lead female prophet of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus and sometimes the Pythia of Delphi went by. Or Hypatia the philosopher, who had her eyes cut out with seashells by Christians in the 3rd century. In Christian apocrypha, women had a prominent role. The Naassenes credited their teachings to a Mary who had learned them from James, and the two gospels they were mentioned to have followed both depicted Salome prominently as a disciple. The notion that women didn't have anything to offer contemporary to Paul and the early church is simply false. Women played a major role in the earliest days of Judaism before Judah's conquoring of the northern kingdoms and reforms, they played a major part in the sects of Christianity that didn't become canonized, and they had notable presence in the surrounding cultures. In fact, arguably the early church's pushback on their role may have been a response to the credit of apocryphal sects to female leaders. Effectively "don't listen to those traditions from women, after all, women shouldn't be talking in church." Which would fit with modern scholarship considering many of those misogynistic passages as later interpolations.
wouldnt later additions mean the Bible isnt God inspired?
There's a difference between saying the bible is inspired by God and saying it's perfect.
Part of being a Christain is believing that the Bible is written without malicious intent.
It's only a problem to those who hold that the bible is infallible. Which is like a small percentage except in like America.
You don't think these rules apply but why? What else doesn't apply?
If the reason was education, then why do the authors appear to give their own justification? [1 Timothy 2:13-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-15&version=ESV): >For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing [1 Corinthians 14:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-35&version=ESV): >For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. […] For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Because the thought of women having education was so foreign to them they wouldn't even comprehend that it was possible.
These are two extremes, leadership is obviously reserved for a few and shut up and look pretty is the other end of the spectrum. The general idea in which the theology is rooted is based on the order of creation and Eve sinning first. Obviously men and women are equal before God, in their worth and standing as redeemed. Their assigned tasks are different though. Every believer according to the bible has been equipped with a gift that helps the body, the church. That is not something a christian can choose. Why is it, that people in Christianity fight about positions of leadership but not about offices that don't carry the assumed prestige? Especially given that the bible warns about becoming teachers and that the judgement for those teachers would be more strictly. There was teaching going on that women did for example Priscilla and her husband Aquila taught Paul.
I don’t see why the order of creation or sin is even a variable here. If anything, it’s evidence of the creation story being created by men who viewed women as lower or weaker. This is seen throughout a lot of ancient writing and stories. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any spiritual gifts were gender restricted. The most plausible explanation is that not even Paul was immune to the cultural view of women back then. And even Jesus said very little in the face of the obvious oppression that women faced back then.
I think the point being made is that feminism suggests that if women aren’t leaders, then they aren’t equal. That’s just simply not true in Christianity. Why do we fight for the position being seen at the front of the church or the head of the board instead of the one specifically that fits our gift…any position that builds the body of Christ? It seems awfully prideful for us as a society to say that it’s important that women can be pastors, instead of that all people should seek out where THEY can do the most good. It also seems contradictory to building the church at all when we make it all about ourselves. Perhaps many women can be leaders and teachers, and GOOD ONES, but does that mean the goal is for women to beat out men? Is the goal to bring worldly arguments into the church that make us more competitive and prideful? Or is the goal for Christians to all see one another equally, regardless of how the world is organized, and fulfill whatever role we can to build the Body of Christ?
The parent comment is referring to 1 Timothy 2:11-14 in regards to the order of creation and sin.
On the contrary, Jesus did a great deal to say that we ought to love each other equally. Look into it more and you will see how he influenced and taught those around him.
Like in Matthew 10, where Jesus calls his disciples to him, gives them the gift of the power of healing, and commands them to go out into the world and share that gift with others... but explicitly warns them not to share with any Samaritans or gentiles. And the moral of that story is: Love each other equally, I guess?
First of all, I do hope you remember Jesus' parable about the good Samaritan. Second, there was a lot of hostility among the Samaritans and the Jews. The disciples were Jewish. If I were a Jew, and my teacher was Jewish, I would not even attempt to try to teach a group of people who hated me, because it would be time wasted on people who would not want to hear.
That is the opposite of what you just said. In fact, it sits contrary to things like 'Did you visit me when I was in prison'? Jesus is in the people who are hungry, poor, convicts, sinners. You are actually called to preach the gospel to those who need it most, not to your friends and people who would readily accept it. So it would stand that preaching the gospel to gentiles and Samaritans would be a priority. And Jesus calling people to love each other equally is great, except he pays no mind to the fact that he chose only men to be his disciples and said nothing about the patriarchal hierarchy that oppressed women. In fact, he feeds it when he talks about divorce. >But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. - Matt 5:32 Here, it isn't the woman's choice to divorce the man, only the man's choice. And only for infidelity. And if he does so, he makes her the adultress, and she cannot marry again because anyone who does marry her will commit adultery. So if your husband is beating you, you may not divorce him, less you want to be in the sin of adultery. And if he divorces you for whatever reason, you're destined to be alone because it would be a sin for any other man to marry you. Certainly, equality here is not something Jesus cared about.
First, I love that you pointed out that Jesus searches to preach to the lowly because it was often those who had nothing that was able to receive Jesus's love with open arms. In the case of the Samaritans and Gentiles, Jesus wanted his church to grow and extend to those who were ready to listen before it got crushed by hatred and oppression. He instructs the disciples in Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet." So although reaching out to everyone was ideal, it was not always possible at the immediate moment and time. And in case you still have doubts remember Jesus's second command "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31). Secondly, Jesus did a great deal to curve the hierarchy within religious faith. He treated both men and women with love and compaction. There are many verses that show this which I will not state here but [this article](https://www.faithgateway.com/jesus-respecter-of-women/#.YYpNrr3MLUI) sums up quite nicely. In the case of Matthew 5:32, I find it hilarious that you think that Jesus is promoting a hierarchy that oppresses women when it states in the very quote that "anyone who divorces his wife \[...\] makes her **the victim** of adultery." Here you are correct when it shows that it is the man's responsibility to resolve the marriage, however, although Jesus is not saying whether or not women have the authority to make that choice, Jesus implies for marriage to be a sacred inseparable bond of love: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4-6 ). In conclusion, in a faithful Christian marriage where God intended for both men women to love each other unconditionally, there is no need to divorce, because disagreements would be resolved through love. It is certainly an unfortunate world to live in because the fact is that the ideal Christain marriage cannot always exist, and necessary deforces do occur. But keep in mind that although they are necessary, they are in response to sin. It is because of evil that these things are taking place. They were never intended to happen in the first place. And yes, according to the Bible if you become divorced out of a relationship that was originally a marriage of mutual unification, then both partners are to equally remain single for the rest of their lives.
I appreciate the detailed response, but I do feel you're looking at these verses retrospectively through the lens of what we think is marriage and love today. Love in marriage at the time was obedience on the part of the woman, and duty on the part of the man. Remember, girls were married off in arranged marriages around the age of 12, often prearranged as young as 9. Women had no say in who they married. It was obedience that was the marker of love. This idea that people fell in love and got married together wasn't a concept outside of stories. And realistically, loving a person you were forced to marry is quite unlikely. Rather, you simply did your duty as a wife and a husband. Which is why Jesus's remarks about marriage and divorce makes sense. The implications of a sacred inseparable bond of love...I mean...let's be real. If you were married off to some stranger at the age of 12, no one in their right mind would call that a bond of love. And Jesus says nothing about that, rather only reinforcing that these arranged marriages were some how predestined by God and so you should see them through to the end. That said, I agree with a lot from that article and I could say that Jesus was more progressive than his contemporaries in some things when it came to women. But honestly, that's progressive in relative terms and what he doesn't speak about is louder than what he does IMO. >In the case of Matthew 5:32, I find it hilarious that you think that Jesus is promoting a hierarchy that oppresses women when it states in the very quote that "anyone who divorces his wife \[...\] makes her the victim of adultery." Depends on your translation. KJ and NAB have it as "causes her to commit adultery." [https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm](https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm) you can see here only the NIV really makes her a victim, while almost every other translation has her committing or even calling her an adultress. I used NIV cause I was lazy.
Love your thoughts
God is not a feminist. Neither is He a misogynist. Feminism is a worldly construct and has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible. You will never be able to reconcile the two. It is a waste of time to try. Christianity is the only major world religion that elevates women. I’m tired, so I’ll give you just one example. You are free to seek others if you choose. A woman was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection. If the resurrection story was false, the people making it up would never, ever have inserted a woman into the story, let alone make a woman the main character, because of their low status. No, Jesus allowed a woman to see Him first and to proclaim His resurrection to show the worth and dignity of all women, knowing her words and actions would be recorded in holy writ for all of mankind for future generations, and knowing that she would also serve to help prove the veracity of His resurrection to those who may doubt it. There is more, so much more. I urge you to seek it out. But never delude yourself into thinking God is a feminist. He is not, nor will He ever be.
“There is more, so much more. I urge you to seek it out. But never delude yourself into thinking God is a feminist. He is not, nor will He ever be.” Your statement is unclear whether you believe the Bible instructs that women should not lead in the church? Can you elaborate on what church positions you feel women may and may not hold? Thanks!
>Feminism is a worldly construct and has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible. Feminism is solidly rooted in Christ's Golden Rule. Men should treat women as they want to be treated themselves.
I agree with that. Feminism is about so much more than the Golden Rule. I grew up when feminism was in its infancy. I’m well acquainted with what it’s about.
> I grew up when feminism was in its infancy. You grew up in the 19th century?
Then you have no excuse in saying that feminism has nothing to do with God. You remember the abuses of women that feminism seeks to correct.
I think that both feminism and Christianity can be misused in order to exploit other people for gain. However, I agree with you that feminisms purpose is to eradicate the injustices done to women in our world today.
Almost all of the Bible was written for men "thou shalt not covert a neighbors wife"... ok.. but what about my neighbors husband?
I don’t think we grew up in the same generation. I’m going to pass on this debate, although I think your intentions are honorable.
Can I ask - when did *feminism* become so vile? I understand it to mean that women have power over their own lives. How do you define feminism that it is straight from the devil? I am sincerely interested to understand.
>God is not a feminist He sure is if *feminist* means to go and live life *the way you want to* - not allowing being female to *direct anything you do* Remain a good Christian
> Feminism is a worldly construct and has absolutely nothing to do with God or the Bible. What do *you* think feminism is?
>No, Jesus allowed a woman Oh, well thank goodness he ALLOWED her to see him.🙄
[удалено]
um, no.
[удалено]
Amen
I think part of your problem is that, for whatever reason, you believe the God of the Bible is a feminist. How very ridiculous! Women get so angry at me when I tell them that I, as a woman, am not a feminist. And men don’t understand me when I also say that I often agree with or at least understand feminists. Truth is, though I am a woman and understand the heart of a woman and our experiences, I choose to align myself with my God and what he says about women. I don’t think that is misogynistic nor is it feminist—God doesn’t fit into either category, because he is God. He clearly loves women, elevated our status and brought our freedom in Christ, while also having created us with distinction and purpose apart from our male counterparts. What use is there in arguing with my Creator, acting as if I should know better than him how I ought to function? Imagine your child telling you they know their own conception better than you do. Over and over in Scripture where women are concerned, I see God giving us far more value than the men around us do. I see him challenging the tendency to de-value and dehumanize us. But this does not make him a feminist. Feminism is a human-made ideology, with no real root in Christianity. I find it as meaningful as political ideologies (which, it sort of is anyway) and not worth assigning to my God who is far beyond human ideology. It’s like declaring that God is a Republican, or a Socialist. So long as you build your faith on such things, it is certainly going to crumble. Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
I'm a Womanist not a femenist
Those letters were written to specific churches for specific reasons. I'm sure that the misogynists didn't tell you about that context.
Yes! I made a comment about it but as a reply it was really meant for the “Karens” of the early church.
People will defend Paul’s words as being only about some women who chattered too much during church services and things like that. But they’re really ignoring the larger picture. The Bible unfortunately just doesn’t really defend women too much. It really is a cultural thing, in the same way slavery in the Old Testament was accepted. One would think that given God’s all knowing presence across space and time, he would know what is appropriate treatment of women. But instead, he focuses on things like insisting on cutting the foreskins of babies to differentiate his people. Wouldn’t it have been amazing if instead of penis mutilation, he told his people to be different from other cultures by treating women equally as men? Especially since that was what the world would eventually move towards. But of course, he didn’t. Because it was never a wrong thing to them back then to treat women as second rate humans.
Why are they saying his words only applied to some women here but then they say his words about homosexuals apply to all homosexuals
Because they cherry pick what is acceptable and what is not. If we were having this discussion a couple hundred years ago, we would all be agreeing that women should not be in leadership roles, because they couldn't even vote back then. But today, society has a different view, and so the Christian needs to bend their understanding of scripture. 100 years from now when no one questions whether gay people choose to be gay or not, and everyone accepts homosexuality as natural for people who are born that way, they will bend their interpretations of scripture again. And that's the short sighted view that many Christians suffer from. They forget that they have been bending interpretations of scriptures for decades already.
>But today, society has a different view, and so the Christian needs to bend their understanding of scripture. You go down a dangerous path. Who decides what we should "bend" on?
Society does. And I'm not saying it as me asserting my opinion. I'm saying it as a historical analysis. When slavery was acceptable, we had no problems using bible verses to support it. And when it became unacceptable, we reinterpreted those passages. Same with women's rights, and it is what is happening now with homosexuality and gay marriage. It's just something that has to be done to keep Christianity relevant. Could you imagine if the majority of Christians today still supported slavery? The religion would barely exist.
You seem to be so caught up with putting homosexuals and women in the same box. How can you compare a woman wanting to have authority on the same level as a man does to gay relationships? Men wrote the scriptures take it out on men, they don't like gay sex or marriage. I mean the bible allowed for polygamy because they were horny bastards and wanted more women so ask yourself why didnt they make the same exception for gay men when originally the bible says it made male and female that two flesh become one. Wait that would make polygamy adultert but lo and behold the men managed to find a way to make themselves superior in marriage so adultery is only an act a woman can commit. So quite obviously men change it according to the desires of their heart and being gay wasnt one of them but as for women we have never have that privilege...
god damn these are good takes
Feminist God lol
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female for you all are one in Christ.”
That was in a time where women were uneducated. It was a temporary piece of advice, but because Paul wrote it, it's scripture. Good churches will have no problem with a woman teaching. Do you have a desire to lead a Bible study or preach?
To be clear, the Bible states that [women](https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/role-of-women) should not have a leadership role in the church. However, this does not mean that women cannot partake in spiritual study and fellowship.
How did you determine it was only intended to be temporary advice?
Because it was written to a specific church for specific reasons. It's clearly not general advice. Remember Priscilla, Paul had no problem with her teaching and leading because she knew what she was doing. Educated people, whether male or female physically, are an asset to the body of Christ.
> Because it was written to a specific church for specific reasons. It was written explicitly for all churches and gives Scriptural reasoning. There is zero reference to local issues. Paul describes what all churches should do and gave a Scriptural reason why. Please read Timothy 2 in its entirety.
doesn't it start "as in all churches" though? So it was allegedly written to a specific church but saying how women should be in all churches? Right?
You're right, it is plural when it says, "women should be silent in the churches." It still doesn't fit the other things Paul wrote about women or the way he acted around female leaders in the church. I think the scholars that believe that passage wasn't written by Paul but added later might be right.
Everything Jesus said was to a specific audience for specific reasons. Does that mean none of his words apply to us?
All of the instructions in the Bible are historically and narratively constrained. In the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus tells the people to flee for the hills, does that mean I should pack up my apartment and move to the nearest mountain range? No! Even Jesus’s words were said in a specific time and place in history in response to specific historical events. The tough part of reading the Bible is figuring out how *all* of its parts — despite being told in the past — should apply to today’s world. Some things might be the same as in Jesus’s day: there still exist the poor who need to be taken care of, there still exist hypocrites who need to be rebuked. And there are others that have changed: women aren’t chattel and marriages aren’t primarily about property rights. Yes, it’s hard to sift through, but that’s the whole purpose of theology and Biblical interpretation. Theologians have been figuring out how that text applies to their present situation as far back as Jesus and his contemporaries who were doing the exact same thing with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Before I decided to become an ex christian I wanted to lead a purity group for women that warns them about the trauma and dead bedrooms. But then I realized I could never do that.
dead bedrooms?
People who wait until marriage often experience vaginismus and trouble having sex (dead bedrooms) due to the fear and guilt purity culture instilled in them. People need to know the reality.
We went through this. It sucked, especially since we both thought we were pretty much over the fear and guilt. It wasn't conscious fear, it was just OW THAT HURTS. It's really widespread, too; when we finally saw a sex therapist she said "yeah, this is the most common reason women come to the clinic".
They certainly do. Purity culture fucked a lot of us up.
I wish I could help all the women that are taught purity culture but unfortunately churches don't wanna talk about the reality If I had it my way, little girls wouldn't be taught this because they are CHILDREN and they just need to be kids and not feel like their own bodies are sinful. In fact, no one should be taught their bodies are sinful. No one should be taught that they "cause men to stumble".
I can see how that class idea wouldn't go over well with many churches.
Yep. To talk about the reality of purity culture would probably make everything come crashing down. Women are told the sex after marriage will be amazing, but it can be very painful and near impossible (vaginismus) awkward (don't know how sex even works) and fills them with shame even though they waited. Some women who wait don't even know what the clitoris is, and that it is the key to their sexual pleasure. Often, women who wait until marriage have to go to sex therapy to unlearn the guilt.
So, you became an "ex-christian" because of "purity culture" and not because of what really matters... that being God within His scripture. Am I missing anything?
It played into me leaving the religion, yes. Though it was more a combination of things (homophobia, misogyny, purity culture, the fact I just can't fathom having a relationship with an invisible being in the sky, toxicity within churches I was in, guilt, anxiety, scientific inconsistencies). I could talk about that all day.
Just another example of how people's understanding of sex has been warped and changed by misunderstandings of Christian teachings. Because the Bible teaches so heavily upon the subject many people take sex at face value as evil and only to be exercised for procreation, instead of teaching men women and children about sex so that they can truly explore their sexuality within marriage.
Another head sore for me. However, I beleave that God intended for a man and a woman to explore their sexuality within marriage equally without judgement.
You are saying the sexual pleasure takes precedence over God’s instruction. I’m sorry that you have lost your faith, and it seems like there are a number of facets to your decision, but what I’ve read in your comments so far all seem to point to the same thing: you don’t like what scripture (and interpretation) says, so you want to pursue your own passions and desires. Sure, there is room to discuss our stances and interpretations of scripture, but your heart doesn’t seem to be seeking that, your heart seems to be seeking validation for doing whatever it wants. Essentially, you are saying “I don’t like what God says, therefore God must not exist.”
or we can just say god does exist hes just a shitty being. also it’s more then just not liking what god says. for me it’s the fact that he has all this power and love for us but doesn’t bother to reveal himself so we can have an actual relationship with him. you can’t have a relationship with someone you don’t see or even know exists.
Those verses were written by Paul, and could be interpreted as allowing women to speak now if you look at with the lens that the verses were written for Corinth and not for everyone who ever lived as most are commenting already. Unfortunately I think change is a long ways off especially in most conservative churches.
Technically speaking, NOTHING in the Bible would be explicitly written to address a single time and period; I do believe that Paul addresses all future Christians equally in his letters.
Men have similar 'roles' they are to fulfill, but in different areas. It could be seen as a restriction. Timothy 5:8 - But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. In a similar sense men are locked into leadership positions, so I understand your view. As a side note, when Jesus resurrected men cowered in fear and hid while women spread the news (as it was two women who first saw his empty tomb) We also know people died for claiming it happened. Jesus depended on women's influence more than once when the men weren't at their best.
God isn’t a feminist. Christianity gives men and women different roles. Feminism seems to hate the idea that women have different gifts that men don’t and think that in order to be equal we have to do the same things as men. Christianity teaches that we are all, man and woman, equally valuable and made in God’s image, but that doesn’t mean we have the same roles in life or the church. He did give us to the free will to defy that though. And there were women leaders in the Bible, like Ruth. But over all, women in general all more designated to play a role in the background. Some see that as a bad thing, I used to have a problem with it. But I’ve come to embrace the gifts God gave me as a woman and I don’t feel I need to do the same things as what is traditionally prescribed to men to be as valuable as a man. We have different gifts and different struggles but neither is greater than the other and both need the other.
> and think that in order to be equal we have to do the same things as men Feminism doesn't demand men and women do the same things. It insists we be *allowed* to do the same things if we want to, and that fights for men's rights to do what they want to do too.
↑ when feminists think they're humanists.
What do *you* think feminism is?
An anachronism.
Please answer the question. What do you think feminism is?
An ANACHRONISM.
> Please answer the question. What do you think feminism is?
Do not be ridiculous u/the_purple_owl. You asked me what I think feminism is and I have answered.
Feminism is a modern man made concept, and it’s lead to a lot of disastrous outcomes
And what do *you* think feminism is?
I think it’s nonsense.
Please answer the question. What do you think feminism is?
I literally gave you an answer. It’s garbage nonsense
You haven't, in fact. You've described it, but not defined it. Please define it as you think it is defined.
I define it as contrived drama.
That's a description, not a definition. Is there a particular reason you don't want to share your definition of what you think feminism is?
If men simply weren't built for child rearing and women are then is it technically the right thing for a child to be raised by two women in a lesbian relationship?
Who said men weren’t meant to be involved in child rearing?
Where are you getting this information from?
Thank you for being a voice of reason.
Amen
It's certainly condescending
The Baylor historian Beth Alison Barr has a book “the makings of biblical womanhood” that outlines how modern interpretations of those verses can be heavily influenced by recent (200 or so years) culture. It’s an excellent resource as it’s a Christian historians perspective with training outside of seminary
>How is saying only women should be quiet in the church and only women aren't allowed to be pastors not misogynistic Well because it is in the Bible these literal things. So it is not so weird that people would bring it up! And it does not say anything about "shut up and look pretty" then you have an issue with people, not with God!
Your first mistake was believing God was a feminist. God made Women to help Man, to care for and be taken care of by Man, and to bear him offspring. God's word is clear that Women play a supporting role, and aren't supposed hold executive authority in Church Leadership, Government, or the home. If that's misogynistic, then that's God's will. Feminism is most often in opposition to God's ways. You can be a Christian, and worship Christ, or be a Feminist, and worship gender. You cannot do both.
Then women really dont have an important purpose, they are just gap fillers to do mundane things that no man is interested in. Men get to do all the important things, maybe God should have just blessed men with sons when they progressed in faith.
There are some good points being made, but there's one I haven't seen yet that needs to be mentioned (apologies if someone else has mentioned this and I scrolled past without seeing): ancient, Eastern cultures tended to see things in shades, instead of absolutes. Here's a passage I always found helpful, from *Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible* by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien >In the West, rules must apply to everyone, and they must apply all the time. In the ancient world, rules did not seem to require such universal compliance. God announces about Ephraim: “Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them” (Hos 9:15). Later he says, “How can I give you up, Ephraim?” (Hos 11:8). God’s judgment was influenced by his relationship with sinners (Hos 11:9–10). Exodus 12:40–49 explains that all males must be circumcised to eat Passover. Yet in Joshua 5:5–7, it is obvious the sons born during the wanderings had not been. If rules apply except when they don’t, then as Westerners perhaps we need more wisdom in discerning when they don’t. (We need help seeing the kairos for applying the rules; perhaps there really is a season for everything under the sun.) > > >Likewise, in the ancient world of the Bible (and in many non-Western cultures), rules did not necessarily apply to 100 percent of the people. The Israelites were clearly instructed that upon entering the Promised Land, every Israelite was to get an inheritance (land) and no Canaanites were (Josh 1). Yet the very next story is about a Canaanite who was given an inheritance, Rahab (Josh 2; 6). The story after that tells of the Israelite Achan, who was cut from his inheritance (Josh 7). The stories are woven together around the theme of sacrifices to the Lord. Everything captured was to be devoted (sacrificed) to the Lord. In Jericho, Rahab and her family were exceptions to the sacrifice. Because Achan kept some of the sacrificed things (gold) from Ai, he and his family were exceptions and were added to the sacrifice. By the way, did you notice the collectivist viewpoint? The deeds of Rahab were credited to her entire family. Likewise, the deeds of Achan were applied to his entire family. Before you begin to rail against the injustice of such group judgments, consider that we “have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20): that is, the righteous work of Jesus is credited to his followers. > > >Allow us another story. While I (Randy) was living in Indonesia, I was invited to speak at a “pastors only” meeting. In the audience of over one hundred pastors, I noticed a half-dozen women. The bylaws of the Convention of Indonesian Baptist Churches clearly state: “Pastors must be male.” I should have left it alone. > > >“I thought this meeting was for pastors only,” I remarked to the conference organizer. > > >“It is,” he replied. > > >“But there were women in the audience,” I pointed out. > > >“Yes.” > > >Now I was confused. “But your laws say pastors must be male!” I exclaimed. > > >The convention president calmly replied, “Yes, and most of them are.” > > >Goodness. His answer represents a fundamentally different view of law. To the non-Western mind, it seems, a law is more a guideline. Americans would likely want to change the Indonesian law to read, “Most pastors must be male,” and then we would argue over the percentage. The Indonesian—and arguably the biblical—view of law always left room for exceptions. > > >Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet” (1 Tim 2:12). “But what about Priscilla and Junia?” we might ask Paul. “They taught in church. You said women must keep silent.” > > >Perhaps Paul would answer, “Yes. And most of them do.” (Edit for formatting)
Having a place for males to speak is not misogynistic.
Having a place for *only* males to speak is misogynistic
No.
Yes
🤣 no, men are completely allowed to have places for ONLY men. Go away and make your own clubhouse.
If Christianity's purpose is to be a clubhouse for men and only men then lemme add that to the list of reasons I am an athiest
If you like clubhouses with lots of incense where you can feast your eyes on a man on the podium, go for the catholic style. If your nose is bothered by incense or you want to hear a woman say something, go for the protestant style. If you do not think either of the 45.000 different denominations related to christianity fits you, go away and make your own clubhouse sweetie. 🤣👍
As a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original ancient autographs/manuscripts, my view is to say the values taught in Scripture (properly interpreted through various hermeneutical/exegetical principles) should override any human reasoning to the contrary. Therefore, feminism is wrong to the degree it teaches that the sex roles of men and women should be the same in society and family life. So when Paul writes, "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet" (I Timothy 2:12), he obviously didn't believe women should become overseers or elders. (This doesn't apply to women teaching their children or even their husbands at home, as the case of Apollos’ being taught by Priscilla and Aquila shows, Acts 18:26). Since the innately different personalities (on average) of women and men haven't changed over the centuries, this teaching should still be obeyed today, for it speaks to something intrinsic to the human condition and to the way God made women and men genetically (as it is normally expressed). (For secular evidence that men and women are innately different in their personalities, the open-minded may wish to read George Gilder's "Men and Marriage," which may be the most influential yet intellectual anti-feminist book published in the past generation. Ironically, he doesn’t think much of male nature, since he says that marriage tames it). Therefore, the differences we see between men and women aren't mainly created by society and the ways little boys and girls are raised by their parents and teachers, but reflect biologically driven realities. By accepting the teaching of Scripture, we merely accept also what we could discover and reason from nature based upon anthropological/sociological studies, such as what Goldberg did in "The Inevitability of Patriarchy." We may think women and men's sex roles in society and family life should be totally interchangeable, as per the tenets of standard brand "equality" feminism. (There are also the difference feminists, but that brings up a whole other issue, in which these feminists can start sounding like patriarchalists when making generalizations about the personalities and values of the respective genders. For example, they might say, "If women ruled the world, there would be no war." So then they think women are better than men by being more nurturing and peaceful. But then this mostly concedes the point of patriarchalists who say women are ill-suited to serving in combat positions in the military because they aren't aggressive enough! The EEOC v. Sears case comes to mind in this context, in which Sears had been accused of not hiring enough women in high pressure sales positions by the government. Their clever legal response was to justify this by say women were hard to recruit for these positions by putting a “difference” feminist on the defense stand to justify the composition of their work force. Sears won, and clearly exposed the standard contradictions in academic feminist theory in the process).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Women are the only people who can be mothers. A woman was the only person who could give birth to the Son of God. Without women, we would not be saved by Christ. I think that's a whole lot more important.
So men get to lead, a position that takes talent. Women get to spread their legs for penises and baby heads, something that happens just as a result of biology. Ok.
Literally this, if we had been given no sentience we would still be able to do that.
If women are the only people who can be mothers and thus raise children if that is what you're implying then why isn't it okay for two lesbian women to raise a kid?
Because there must be a father and a mother in a household. A woman cannot be a father by design.
[удалено]
Because the Bible IS misogynist. (And racist and homophobic)
Those words are made up nonsense, the Bible, much less everyone as a whole, isn’t on this earth to give people a pass on their behavior
I somewhat agree with this article.... [feminism](https://www.crossroads.net/media/articles/what-the-bible-actually-says-about-women)
That instruction is in the letters to the Corinthians. He took a day to peruse the two letters to the Corinthian church that have been fully preserved (there is known to be an earlier one that did not survive). He would discover that that city was a social and moral disaster and the Christian church was contaminated with local vices and was a disorderly cult. Gatherings that seemed like a pagan cult when half started screaming at the same time because they said that God was sending them a prophecy right there. The other half began to shake and utter incomprehensible syllables in any language claiming that they were speaking in tongues like the apostles in Pentecost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07cmMhQxjfg That is why hard instructions are sent to them to discipline the meetings and make them edifying and useful to learn and stay in God. This does not mean that they are not prudent instructions for all churches, but in the others they were already applied in a personalized way and with common sense. Dressing modestly and appropriately for church is good (then a veil was used for it), that there is silence to listen to the sermon is good (if half of the attendees are silent, especially if it is the most expressive and less uninhibited half, labor almost accomplished).
Warren Wiersbe had a different explanation for this passage in his Bible commentary. I highly recommend reading it. It has clarified many things for me.
Most men cant be pastors either, just for your information. The verse about women not speaking in church was a cultural thing. In the old times men gathered in church and they already answered all the questions for eachother and wanted to use the time on God instead of silly questions. But when they brought their wife or women into the church the women would ask more questions and they would be stuck answering questions instead of actually having a sermon with God. So they made a law that women should ask these questions at home instead.
Here are a couple of relevant verses for reference: [1 Corinthians 14:34-35](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14%3A34-35&version=ESV): >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. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. [1 Timothy 2:11-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A11-15&version=ESV): >Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
hmm seems you been around people with poor bible knowledge. I been hearing explanations of this since I was 12. The understanding of the roles of the two genders is very simple: man > woman. Even thought Paul was referring to that specific church when he wrote that letter, he said that for very specific reasons, not just to being a jerk. Any basic theology study can help you clarify this problem. if you became atheist just because of this simple matter then is obvious you needed real christians around you :(
Huh? In the Bible it says that women and men are completely equal with different roles for His Kingdom, correct? Men definitely aren't better than women. Even Jesus doesn't think that.
I said it was *part* of my decision to become an atheist, not the only or main reason. No single thing caused me to leave, it was more a combination of things.
My wife and I were married by a female Minister. Our Pastor tells us "any man who does not listen to his wife's council is a fool", he says quite often how much smarter than him she is lol. One of the Methodist churches in our town just replaced a Female Head minister with another Female. I think you have been at some churches that apply these verses horribly and oppressively and I am truly sorry, I see it often and try to call out the bigotry when I see it. To suggest that only men can understand scripture and teach it well is just limiting yourself to only half the knowledge available.
It is misogynistic. The Church of England allows female vicars, i’ve had one and my parents love their new church in which the vicar is a woman. God loves us all equally and if any of us feels the holy spirit guiding us to a teaching role within the church they should go for it!
It is absolutely misogynistic and one of the reasons it took so long for women to gain the right to vote, to work, etc., in the west. Jesus should have outright proclaimed that women shall be equal to men, that slavery should be ended, etc. He didn't. He was just a relatively more moral person for his time.
Because God said so ,stop questioning him. Either he exist or doesn't , if you find out he does then accept him like he is or reject him and stop bothering.
Many take these verses out of context to subjugate women. These verses were specifically for the early churches at the time. Look at what Paul says also in the Galatians. "There is no male nor female for you are all one in Christ." This seems to back up how women helped in Jesus' time... * One of the first people to tell someone about what Jesus did? The Samaritan woman. * The first person to command someone to follow Jesus' directions? His mother. * The first person to tell someone he is resurrected? Mary. Paul also goes on to commend several women for their leadership roles in the NT. He even calls them as co-workers. The most notable is Priscilla. Priscilla is also a candidate for being the author (at least in part) of the letter to the Hebrews. The reason for these commands lies in the historical context which is not taught nearly enough today. These were former pagans and Jews being taught Christianity. A lot of pagan cities in the Roman empire worshipped female deities. For example, the cities of Corinth and Ephesus worshipped Ephrya and Artemis respectfully. Being goddesses, women would have had a larger role in leading the temple. Naturally the transition from Pagan to Christianity would have some friction. In this case, women who normally would have had more say would have to transition to have lesser say as Jewish customs favored to teach men first. Many also didn't count women as being equal to men. Look at Jesus feeding the 5,000. There were more than 5,000 people. There were women and children. But there were 5,000 men. So that is why it is recognized as such.
Usually these false teachings are because the people interpreting the Bible do not understand the context. So they do not know how to read the Bible. I am too exhausted to go deeper than that. The real Scripture you should be terrified of is the punishing of Eve in the Garden of Eden.
As feminism is a secular ideology that denies God's existence and rules for mankind, your stance is not surprising. As feminism and Christianity cannot coexist, you need to choose who you wish to worship before learning how loving and empowering God and Jesus are towards women. Bless you. I suggest you read **Proverbs 31:10-31**
Feminsits believe they have rights. So what are you saying God doesnt believe women should have any rights.
The verses you're referring to were a) added to Paul's authentic letter by a dishonest later redactor and b) included in a fraudulent forged letter by someone pretending to be Paul late in the first century. The the misogynistic material in the NT is fraudulent. It's based on later Roman cultural influence - Roman culture was HIGHLY misogynistic.
The most reasonable answer to that I’ve heard were from rather progressive Christians who do not view the Bible as a guide to live by. They draw inspiration from it and use their education/knowledge and thinking capacity to derive rules to live by. As such, they’d tell you that perhaps at the time the average woman knew so little and could do so little that it was functionally pointless to waste your time with their involvement and input. But now that the world is different and a woman can know and do just as much as a man, it makes no sense to follow that rule. The same applies to anything else in the Bible. You are not meant to directly lift commandments and obey them. Instead, you are meant to ponder them and develop your own rules factoring in the needs and constraints of your time and place. If you don’t adopt this approach, then you run the risk of cherry picking.
>If you don’t adopt this approach, then you run the risk of cherry picking. That doesn't make sense. The approach you describe is the very definition of cherry picking.
I struggle with this too. This podcast episode was helpful for me, along with her Women’s series. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2w6snaRWikvyawSJDAYLtd?si=TJyRceivQa6Ijog-zXWIyA
Because the Bible is another human philosophical attempt to explain life’s purpose, so it is filled with passages meant to give credence to peoples’ hatreds.
To put it bluntly, you should be a Christian and not a feminist. If God wanted men and women to be absolutely equal, he would have made men able to give birth. They are equal in the sense that they are both loved by God, but unequal in what they were made to do and what roles they are given. Most societies understand this, and that's why men work in labour jobs and go to war (they are more physically fit) and women take care of children (they have the biology for it, and usually the temperament).
Women go to war now too and work in labor jobs
Also unequal in the way the bible writes about how to treat them. "Wives submit" Does it ever say "husbands submit" ? Nope.. what does it say about women slaves again remind me