All equal under God, but submission for women?

[NNN0LHI]

All equal under God, but submission for women?

Evangelical group challenges claim of a biblical basis for male leadership

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0828/p12s01-lire.html

<snip>America's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), for example, now insists the Bible prescribes male pastoral leadership in church and the "gracious submission" of wives to their husbands. As a result:

• Teachers at their seminaries and missionaries around the world who refuse to sign a statement in agreement are being fired or forced to resign their posts.

• Hundreds of women pastors find their contributions no longer recognized.

• A former woman leader in the Baptist World Alliance speaks of a "rising tide of female suppression in US Christian churches."

more

I thought we eviscerated the Taliban?

[dorktv]

1. Hey man I only submit with a safe word!

Seriously, I read of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's puzzlement over why women are considered less then men, and I think it boils down to two things: That second chapter in Genisis, and that stupid St. Paul. I am sure there is more but that looks pretty clear cut.

[pasadenaboy]

11. St Paul is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

I think like most things, you have to read these things in context and understand the limitations of their time and place.

Expecting uneducated, fearful, tribal people such as southern baptists, to understand the complexities of Paul's thought, particularly as relates to his own cultural context is unfair. They are simply reading into it what they want.

Paul often gets a bad rap on two fronts: gender and slavery. And I think in both cases, he is over simplified and not given a fair shot. Paul lived in a time where both slavery and subjegation of women were common place and accepted.

Paul, as leader of a relatively revolutionary new form of life and thought (early christianity) had to figure out what to do with people who were asking about these things. He basically took a two prong approach: He tells women and slaves not to demand these rights ( passages on being subject to authority and wives submitting to their husbands) but also says that in the christian realm, such relationships of power shouldn't exist (Letter to Philemon re: slavery, husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church). I think in paul's point of view, the fight was to have a pure vision of Christianity, and not worry too much about what the outside world was doing, but in the context of Christianity, I think he saw that subjection of slaves or women was not congruent with the message of Jesus.

I think a lot of people judge Paul based on what fundies say about him, which I don't think is very wise. Imagine if you were judged by what fundies said about you!

Just my two cents.

[kysrsoze]

16. The Virgin Mary Brought Christ into the World (if that's what you believe)

and that's the best you can do for women? This kind of thought disgusts me. Actually, according to my history, women rule this world. When a woman has a man who truly loves her, he'll do literally anything for her. They ought to at least get a vote for that if nothing else.

I work for a woman and she is one of the best bosses I've ever had. Of course, my VP is a total bitch, so just like men, they run the gamut. Why should they be considered any less relevant.

[aquart]

21. I just think of him as the guy who saw Elvis in the supermarket.

Who's to say he didn't? I mean, just because the guy had been dead for years.....?

[htuttle]

30. Sigh....Thanks a lot...

...That's the second keyboard I've spewed coffee on this week.

[northzax]

33. I think it's worth noting

that there are a lot of real good people who are southern Baptists by heritage, Bill Clinton for instance, or do you group him with the uneducated, fearful, tribal people?

can we try not to slur entire groups of people at the same time?

[AlabamaYankee]

38. Paul's views were very progressive for the age

To add just a bit to your excellent post (sotle my thunder, you did).

At the time Paul wrote this, women were less than property in the highly partiarchal Greco-Roman world. Paul, by demanding that men honor and be faithful to their wives, puts the realtionship on a much more equal footing than had been thought possible. He's also writing to a tiny and unorthodox minority, and is careful that they do not become too noticibly different.

The literal minded barbarians, whether they be Baptist, Lutheran, or any other "ist", as you said, read only the surface words, and ignore the inconvenient parts, like, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church"

[shimmergal]

47. That passage from St. Paul was one of our readings in church last Sunday.

And it was _real_ interesting what the priest said about it.

First, that it was probably not written by the real Paul, but by one of _his_ followers 20 or 30 years after Paul's death.

Second, that Paul was not married (and who knows about the follower!?)
but that anyone is was, or who has been married, knows it's an unrealistic picture of how a marriage works.

Third, that the real point was the responsibility the person in power has to those "under" him. (And that goes for God, too.) Sort of the same idea as the Superman motto "With great power goes great responsibility."

I'm so glad to belong to a church (Episcopalian) where you don't have to hear the lockstep, literal interpretation!
Not that Southern Baptists like Bill Clinton felt obligated to buy into it, either.

[PassingFair]

46. Ahem....

If the bible is the unfallible word of god, and if god spoke thru Paulie... then why would the all omnipotent one be constrained by the "context and ... limitations of their time and place."?

[LiberalFighter]

15. I read somewhere...

that women were not considered having a soul during the early Roman Catholic history.

[kysrsoze]

17. I hate that animals aren't considered by many sects to have a soul

If anybody met by absolutely wonderful pets, I don't know how they could say that. I love my dogs - they're my 2nd and 3rd children. I even look at my fish and see so much more than NOTHING. It's tough enough to flush those guys when they start floating.

[opihimoimoi]

45. It was about 100 years ago that the RCC decided women had souls.

go figure

[catzies]

2. This Admistration's WAR ON WOMEN continues unabated.

Women the world over are in peril from this way of thinking.

[Melsky]

3. It's hard for me to believe that people still think like this

but check out this list of books for the "Godly Wife" aka doormat.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/3IZB6DO3IW90I/qid=1062039317/sr=5-2/ref=sr_5_2/102-3383602-0256936

featuring such classics as

Finding the Hero in Your Husband: Surrendering the Way God Intended

Liberated Through Submission

and

Me? Obey Him?: The Obedient Wife and God's Way of Happiness and Blessing in the Home

In my book, only dogs are supposed to obey. If people want to do this in their own lives, whatever. But when they start trying to promote it to others as the only way of life, well, that's just sick. I feel so sorry for anyone who buys into this crap.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Thanks for the link...I can think of one guy on the Arnold thread

that will run right out and buy it. :D

[Ripley]

35. Only one?

There sure seems to be a lot of guys on DU who condone violence against women on a regular basis. I guess the Arnold Penis threads will bring them all out and we'll have gender bashing until the next south bashing.

[bloom]

6. My catholic sister gave me that book once - Me, obey him...?

Now she is about to finalize her divorce and he is getting just about everything - including the kids.... His control is out of control - and even now she is afraid to seek justice in the courts.

It's one of the sadder stories I know of.

[madrchsod]

5. 3000 thousand year old

tribalism..this isn`t christian ,it`s ancient tribal law .

[roguevalley]

7. I agree

I also believe Paul got a bum rap. Try St. Augustine.
What a buncha fascist bs. Its amusing, isn't it, the
hatred people have for arabs and other semitic people
who are the fountainhead of this thinking for our
religions today? They wouldn't spit on an arab or a
semitic person -from whose culture this paternalistic
stuff comes from centuries ago- nor would they let
their daughters marry one but they tell us this is the
way to live.

What a joke.

[markus]

23. No, its the imposition of Roman culture on early Xianity

In the early church, women appear to have been treated equally, served as bishops (leaders), etc. However, over time Roman cultural norms were imposed on the church, but have nothing to do with Xianity.

[Dhalgren]

26. Be careful, there.

In Ancient Rome, women were treated as very equale in almost every aspect of social intercourse. I think you are talking about the Classical Greek era where the status of women was about equal to that of a child. Paul's ministry was conducted in the Greek east, not the Roman west. Greek culture was dominant in the east right through the fall of the Western Empire.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. Wasn't this issue a primary reason for Jimmy Carter's

leaving the Southern Baptist Church?

[LeftCoast]

9. What's next, the burkha?

This is just sad.

[JewelDigger]

10. Paul's original greek word that is translated to 'be subject to' REALLY ..

was a term that meant to subordinate oneself VOLUNTARILY. It did not carry the connotation to obey which Paul used when talking about children with their parents, nor did it mean to dutifully obey as was the case with the word he used for slaves.

One Greek language authority commented, 'Since it is asking for something that is voluntary in nature, 'be subject to' is an awkward translation at best. It really means something like 'give allegiance to,' 'tend to the needs of', 'be supportive of', or 'be responsive to'.

Another definition would be 'to place oneself at the disposition of'. This carries a connotation of equality', an 'equal sharing of the task' in which one worker allows another to lead in order to accomplish their goals. If you envision a perfect helper for someone, you could see the person doing all of the above. The woman is to be a 'helper' to the man.

The bible also describes the WIFE as a 'crown' to her husband. The verb form of the hebrew word translated 'crown' can mean to encircle (for attack or protection).

---------------

In other words, this group is just putting a horrible bad-twist on something that could be a wonderful and good thing for both men and women. It can (and has) caused people to want to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and reject scripture altogether. It's a good thing that people like Jimmy Carter (and many others) won't allow themselves to be fooled by the 'theology' of groups like this.

[Dhalgren]

27. Regardless of the kind of "spin" placed on it by anyone,

the letters of Paul make women second class citizens within the Christian frame. Now, many modern Christians has gone past that anachronism, and good for them! But don't try to go back 2000 years and try to explain away what is clear in the texts.

[Melinda]

12. "The Handmaid's Tale"

"The Handmaid's Tale is set in the futuristic Republic of Gilead. Sometime in the future, conservative Christians take control of the United States and establish a dictatorship. Most women in Gilead are infertile after repeated exposure to pesticides, nuclear waste, or leakages from chemical weapons. The few fertile women are taken to camps and trained to be handmaidens, birth-mothers for the upper-class. Infertile lower-class women are sent either to clean up toxic waste or to become "Marthas," house servants. No women in the Republic are permitted to be openly sexual; sex is for reproduction only."

Science fiction or...?

[demigoddess]

34. The handmaid's tale is a prophetic work, it is tomorrow when the repugs

completely destroy the democrat party. And then they run amok.

[peterh]

13. Yo….what’s the problem here…

:evilgrin:

[JewelDigger]

14. Perhaps we should also start another thread ....

....about what the scripture says the MAN's responsiblities and duties are to women. Are you ready???

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. I know him personally..it was a joke!

Trust me.

As a matter of fact, he could write the book you suggest...he's a great guy :D

[peterh]

19. Ok…I’m purrrring….

A guy can do that can’t he….:P

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Sure...wasn't Garfield a guy cat?

[peterh]

22. Yeah…and so is Bucky

B-)

[MaineDem]

24. A woman's place is in the house

...and the Senate! :)

[NNN0LHI]

25. I really liked that n/t

[Dhalgren]

29. And the White House!

.

[Lars39]

28. This isn't new; my missionary BIL had to sign the agreement a few yrs ago.

SB's have always been on the wrong side: slavery, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc.

[Liberator_Rev]

31. Nobody damns Paul as badly as Paul does himself.

Paul said some wonderful things, which is probably why 14 of his Letters were included in the approved canon of scripture by a "Council" of church leaders in the fourth century AD, just as Jewish elders had done years ago with the "Old Testament". The Bible isn't a bound book delivered by a stork or something to a church. It's a collection of what we might call pamplets today written over the course of many centuries, by different writers, and which a bunch of old men decided should be in a collection they wanted to put into what has come to be called "the holy book".

The recent book by Hyam Maccoby, called "The Mythmaker" shows how dubious many of Paul's claims were, and how profound and disastrous an influence he had on the work begun by Jesus of Nazareth, but transformed into a "Christianity" that Jesus himself probably wouldn't recognize. What most people since have called "Christianity" has been the teaching of Paul of Tarsus, not that of Jesus of Nazareth.

Nobody does a better job of discrediting Paul, however, than Paul himself. See his own words at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Paulvsall & at
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ForSalvation.


at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org .

See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[Rex]

32. In the eyes of God, some are more equal than others

This according to a book written by men. What did you expect?

[varun]

36. Sadly, this is true in most cultures around the world

In India, most Hindu women are treated like second class citizens. Despite having full constitutional rights, many women are treated as property.

Despite the emancipated views of early Hindus (they have female godesses, and female saints), present day India sucks if one is born as a woman there

:(

[demdave]

37. If you don't like a church's teachings...don't join. Works for me.

I really don't like handling snakes and I feel uncomfortable speaking in tongues, so I don't join those religions. The whole idea of religious tolerance, which there is little of around here, is that you can worship almost any way you see fit. A few exceptions would be the mistreatment of children, the killing of people who don't agree with you and your God and forcing your religion on me.


As an adult though, I do not believe it is my job to tell you how to worship or to protect your from your own stupidity.

[FireHeart]

39. History speaks for itself.

<- FROM "THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS" ->


Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not
worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order
to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself
male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."


<- From "THE GOSPEL OF RAMAKRISHNA" ->

- One cannot obtain Knowledge of Brahman unless one is
extremely cautious about women. Therefore it is very difficult
for those who live in the world to get such Knowledge. However
clever you may be, you will stain your body if you live in a
sooty room. The company of a young woman evokes lust even in a
lustless man.
You must not look even at the portrait of a woman. A monk
enjoying a woman is like a man swallowing the spittle he has
already spat out. A sannyasi must not sit near a woman and talk
to her, even if she is intensely pious. No, he must not talk to
a woman even though he may have controlled his passion.

Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogues II, 33, 2
With women "the very consciousness of their own nature
must evoke feelings of shame."

St. John Chrysostom, On Priesthood, VI, ch. 8
"There are in the world a great many situations that weaken the conscientiousness of the soul. First and foremost of these is dealings with women. In his concern for the male sex, the superior may not forget the females, who need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin. In this situation the evil enemy can find many ways to creep in secretly. For the eye of woman touches and disturbs our soul, and not only the eye of the unbridled woman, but that of the decent one as well."


Oh, the list is endless.

[smirkymonkey]

40. What a coincidence!!

They're all men! I'm shocked.

[donco6]

41. The SBC has always taught this.

Nothing new. Hate it, but it's just business as usual for them.

[Kool Kitty]

42. One step closer to "The Handmaid's Tale"

country. :argh:

[InkAddict]

43. SBC and other fundie religions

legitimize "crazy-making" by embracing literal meaning to these archaic notions of obedience and submission.

In our current "real" world where gender identities and roles are often blurred or, more liberally and charitably integrated, just imagine the wasted potential, all bundled up in the phrase "what a nice couple/family" that ripples outward from that particular "sacred" relationship into the less-than charitable church, fundie-infested community, and discriminating society, when fundie-grown closeted gays-in-denial choose the cover of marriage and family to hold their equally religiously brainwashed but authentically straight partners in psychological, emotional, and physical/economic slavery by way of isolating and paralyzing guilt and shame.

From what I've heard, the zeolots then go on and say, Hush, don't air your dysfunctional, abnormally CLEAN linen in public, just let Jesus carry the burden of your/our participation in this sinful falsehood entered into freely and by choice until "death do you part. A heavenly reward will be awaiting, and let no man put asunder what God hath joined. Tough situation; we'll certainly pray for you."

FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGION IS DANGEROUS, and its FOLLOWERS who are in the world but not of it, are EVIL HYPOCRITES! :thumbsdown:

[opihimoimoi]

44. Read WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN. Merlin Stone

It tells of the days when women had parity, could divorce, own businesses, had equal say in civil matters, etc etc

It was the Levites who changed things. Made genocide on cultures who adhered to the Goddess Culture.

Read the early parts of the Bible. It confirms. The Levites wanted men to control things, period. All cultures who worshipped the Goddess of old were deemed pagans and therefore , evil. Pure Pysops even in those early days.

Christianity followed, so did Islam. All 3 have one thing in common, the subjugation of women. It continues till the present.

Delusional people led by evil leaders who exploit. It continues unabashed and in too many Nations. Sad, it is the cause of many many conflicts.
Richard the Lion Hearterd slaughtered 2,700 POWs after capturing a city in the Holy Land, a dark spot on his name.

The Catholic Church slaughtered the Cathars in what became the Inquisition. Look it up. CATHARS. Pure genocide. They did the same on Easter Island, the natives culture was denigrated and stopped. So did the subjugation of the American Indians in California, Nevada, Texas, wherever the Missions were set up. The Indians were used as slaves. Religion has a bad history if we care to read, but we are too lazy too tired too insensitive to take the effort. Sad.

Thus we repeat our mistakes